Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 214

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Full‐mouth ultrasonic debridement versus quadrant scaling and root planing as an initial approach in the treatment of chronic periodontitis

Open access
Wennström, Jan L., Tomasi, Cristiano, Bertelle, Alberto, Dellasega, Ester·2005·Journal of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of (i) a single session of “full‐mouth ultrasonic debridement” (Fm‐UD) as an initial periodontal treatment approach and (ii) re‐instrumentation of periodontal pockets not properly responding to initial subgingival instrumentation. Methods: Forty‐one patients, having on the average 35 periodontal sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) 5 mm, were randomly assigned to two different treatment protocols following stratification for smoking : a single session of full‐mouth subgingival instrumentation using a piezoceramic ultrasonic device (EMS PiezonMaster 400, A+PerioSlim tips) with water coolant (Fm‐UD) or quadrant scaling/root planing (Q‐SRP) with hand instruments . At 3 months, all sites with remaining PPD5 mm were subjected to repeated debridement with either the ultrasonic device or hand instruments. Plaque, PPD, relative attachment level (RAL) and bleeding following pocket probing (BoP) were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Primary efficacy variables were percentage of “closed pockets” (PPD4 mm), and changes in BoP, PPD and RAL. Results: The percentage of “closed pockets” was 58% at 3 months for the Fm‐UD approach and 66% for the Q‐SRP approach (p>0.05). Both treatment groups showed a mean reduction in PPD of 1.8 mm, while the mean RAL gain amounted to 1.3 mm for Fm‐UD and 1.2 mm for Q‐SRP (p>0.05). The re‐treatment at 3 months resulted in a further mean PPD reduction of 0.4 mm and RAL gain of 0.3 mm at 6 months, independent of the use of ultrasonic or hand instruments. The efficiency of the initial treatment phase (time used for instrumentation/number of pockets closed) was significantly higher for the Fm‐UD than the Q‐SRP approach: 3.3 versus 8.8 min. per closed pocket (p<0.01). The efficiency of the re‐treatment session at 3 months was 11.5 min. for ultrasonic and 12.6 min. for hand instrumentation (p>0.05). Conclusion: The results demonstrated that a single session of Fm‐UD is a justified initial treatment approach that offers tangible benefits for the chronic periodontitis patient.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2005.00776.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 214

Metadata

Authors
Wennström, J. L., Tomasi, C., Bertelle, A., & Dellasega, E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06-30
Volume
32
Issue
8
Pages
851-859
ISSN
  • 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-051X
OpenAlex
W2153577956
Cited by
214
References
3
FWCI
11.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Full‐mouth ultrasonic debridement versus quadrant scaling and root planing as an initial approach in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2005.00776.x
The paper
Wennström, J. L., Tomasi, C., Bertelle, A., & Dellasega, E. (2005). Full‐mouth ultrasonic debridement versus quadrant scaling and root planing as an initial approach in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2005.00776.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.