Endoscopic vs Tactile Evaluation of Subgingival Calculus - Article Example

The aim of this article is to highlight how the endoscopic method can help in the identification and treatment of sub-gingival calculus. Although the endoscopic technique is viewed as an efficient device in periodontal disease, it has some shortcomings that cannot be ignored. For example, the results of Michaud et al. showed that the endoscope does not give any benefit in root planing and scaling procedures in tooth rootedness (Osborn et al., 2014).SummaryThe technology of periodontal endoscopic has provided a solution to various problems associated with the ordinary detection of calculus and gives an option in the clinical setting.

The technology enables the sub-gingival video image to be exhibited on a proximate detector. As stated by Osborn et al. (2014), the image can be magnified 24x to 48x their real size, relying on the position of the lens and the object under observation (p.230). The article demonstrates how the device can be used for a clear view of sub-gingival calculus. The research was a clinical experiment. It was conducted to compare the results of periodontal with and without the help of a periscope in patients with periodontitis sites.

The statistics were analyzed in a descriptive way of standard and mean deviation. The results were scrutinized to permit differentiation of 11-12 ODU explorer calculus and periscope. The level of the calculus was examined utilizing the Endoscopic Calculus Index that was developed by Checchi et al. (p.231). In order to preserve the similarity in calculus indices, the tactile calculus detection using 11-12ODU explorer employed a revised version of the index. The patients were given two appointments; six and eight-week re-evaluation sessions.

The findings proved that the periscope detected many sites that could not be revealed by the explorer. The results of endoscopic revealed a decrease in the surface area of the calculus compared to tactile explorer alone. Moreover, the endoscope made it easier to get rid of calculus in deep pocket zones. According to the article, the authors came up with a theory that viewing problematic regions of sub-gingival calculus is one element of elimination (Osborn et al., 2014).CritiqueThe article reveals that the use of endoscopic had some shortcomings.

Despite the use of a periscope, there were remaining areas of residual calculus during the second re-evaluation visits. Nevertheless, there was a continuous minimization of the calculus level that did not reduce completely in the subject group. These results are because there are different standards of coloration when utilizing an endoscope. In addition, bleeding, tissue inflammation, and plaque can limit the visibility of sub-gingival. For instance, in the research, calculus was discovered in an estimated 5% of the total number of periscopes using the explorer and not with the periscope.

Moreover, the degree of sub-gingival plaque contributed to the difficulty in the recognition of calculus (Osborn et al., 2014).On the other hand, the use of endoscopic was helpful in the identification of sub-gingival calculus. According to the article, the periscope exposed more calculus than the explorer. In the deep and shallow pockets, the periscope permitted high standards of calculus than the explorer (Osborn et al., 2014).

In addition, the periscope made it easy to discover calculus on multi-rooted teeth and buccal/ lingual vs. proximal exterior, compared to the explorer. Conclusion In my opinion, the use of endoscopic helps a great deal in the revelation of sub-gingival calculus. However, it is recommended that both the tactile evaluation and endoscopic be integrated for better outcomes in periodontal care. In a questionable event, the dental practice team may need to use computed tomography or images for clarification.