Cited by 349Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsOral and gingival health research

The Effectiveness of Subgingival Scaling and Root Planing in Calculus Removal

Open access
Rabbani, Guity M., Ash, Major M., Caffesse, Raul G.·1981·Journal of Periodontology

Abstract

T his study presents an evaluation of the effectiveness of subgingival scaling and root planing related to depth of pocket and type of teeth. A total of 119 teeth in 25 patients were selected; 62 were scaled and 57 were used as controls. All teeth were initially scored using the calculus index of the P.D.I. (Ramfjord). Six surface locations were probed to determine pocket depth. The levels of the gingival margin were marked on the teeth to locate supra and subgingival calculus after extraction. The experimental teeth then were scaled. Both scaled and unsealed teeth were extracted immediately after the experimental procedures. The teeth were washed with water and stained with methylene blue. They were viewed under a stereomicroscope which had a tenth grid on its eyepiece. Percent of surface covered by calculus was assessed on both scaled and unsealed teeth. The results demonstrated a high correlation between percent of residual calculus and pocket depth. It was shown that pockets less than 3 mm were the easiest sites for scaling and root planing. Pocket depths between 3 to 5 mm were more difficult to scale and pockets deeper than 5 mm were the most difficult. Tooth type did not influence the results.

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 · 10.1902/jop.1981.52.3.119

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rabbani, G. M., Ash, M. M., & Caffesse, R. G.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Journal of Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1981-03
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
119-123
ISSN
  • 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3670
OpenAlex
W2003469771
Cited by
349
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Periodontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Oral and gingival health research
Keywords
subgingival scaling and root planing, calculus removal, calculus index, probing depth, tooth type
MeSH terms
Dental Calculus, Dental Prophylaxis, Humans, Periodontal Pocket, Dental Scaling, Subgingival Curettage, Tooth, Tooth Root

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