Can UITs remove biofilm from tooth surfaces beyond the reach of the tip?

It may depend on the design of the new dental supplies. It can be seen from the extracted teeth that when a Inuit water is compared with water, the area of the biofilm being removed is slightly larger. However, the distance of the biofilm from the tip is limited to about 0.5mm. Using cream cheese as a biofilm alternative, some ultrasound UITs remove larger substitutes than others. Ultra-thin UITs are normally used for descaling, under the gum will replace from biofilm in the area of 1 mm (0.5 mm) from the tip, and wider UITs will replace area move from one area to 56 mm square (about 5 mm from the tip). This effect was attributed to a microflow observed at the tip of a dive Inuit. However, these findings must be carefully interpreted because there is no evidence that the biofilm substitutes are similar to dental biofilms. Considering the adhesiveness and viscoelastic properties of biofilms, one might think that removing the biofilm from the matrix is more difficult than creamy cheese because it is easily washed away by the current. Therefore, in order to maximize the removal of biofilms in the clinical environment, it may be necessary to move it to the entire surface of the tooth rather than relying on the tip of the remote function, which is at best limited. The effectiveness of ultrasonic instruments, as well as the manual instruments, are based on the careful removal of the biofilm from the surface of the tooth, which is closely related to the technical level of the operator.
There is no doubt that ultrasound can effectively reduce bacterial count in periodontal pockets. What do you think is the positive impact?
In the end, the removal of the biofilm from the subgingivies makes all forms of regency successful. By inserting a vibrating dental equipment – whether ultrasound or ultrasound – into the periodontal pouch, the biofilm was removed to reduce the number of bacteria in the periodontal pocket. This leads to the healing of periodontal tissue. Neither hand nor machine-driven instruments have selectively removed a bacterial species. In the treatment of periodontitis, no significant difference was found between the two systems. 7. This further proves that the removal of biofilm is not any other mechanism, such as cavitation or microflow, and the scale and root plane of its clinical efficacy are mainly attributable.