Evaluation of a Novel Suction‐Retraction Device During Ultrasonic Scaling: A Pilot Study of Patient and Clinician‐Reported Outcomes

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This pilot study aimed to evaluate the clinical usability and user acceptance of a novel suction-retraction device (SRD) compared with a conventional saliva ejector (CSE) during ultrasonic scaling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients and 50 dental clinicians were included in this study. Each dental clinician treated two patients without any assistance. Ultrasonic scaling of the maxillary arch was performed using the SRD, followed by scaling of the mandibular arch using the CSE. Immediately after each procedure, separate questionnaire surveys were administered to the patients and dental clinicians. Patient-reported outcomes assessed comfort and device preference, whereas clinician-reported outcomes evaluated comfort, treatment interference, usability, and device preference. All questionnaire items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples was used to compare scores between the two devices. RESULTS: From the patient's perspective, the SRD received significantly higher satisfaction scores than the CSE for the amount of water in the oral cavity. Among dental clinicians, the SRD was rated significantly more favourably than the CSE across multiple domains, including freedom of one hand, amount of water in the patient's oral cavity, ease during one-on-one treatment, field of vision, perceived aerosol-related discomfort, fewer positional adjustments, smoothness of treatment progression, helpfulness during treatment, perceived negative-pressure stability during suction, and recommended level of device usage. CONCLUSIONS: The SRD demonstrated favourable clinical usability and acceptability compared with the CSE, particularly from the clinician's perspective, while patient-reported outcomes were largely comparable between the two devices. Given the subjective, questionnaire-based design and non-randomized arch assignment of this pilot study, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and further studies with a randomized design and objective outcome measures are warranted before broader clinical adoption can be recommended.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 2026 · DOI ↗