comparison of the effects of the Arkansas stone and the Idahone ceramic stone
I have access to the Journal of Dental Hygiene and figured I would post the results from the article mentioned above.
The authors conclude that the Arkansas stone and the Idahone ceramic stone are not statistically different in producing a cutting edge on a Gracey curet with few irregularities. Also, the curets sharpened with each stone produced similar root surfaces on extracted human teeth. However, it was mentioned that the Idahone ceramic stone does not require oil, is less expensive, and can be used during client care--thus making it worthwhile to consider in practice.
By using the SEM, the mean edge-widths of the cutting edge were measured after use with one of the two sharpening stones. The Idahone sharpened Gracy curets were 3.5 microns while the Arkansas stone was 1.89 microns. The Idahone stone also had a larger standard deviation. They claim that this difference is not statistically significant. They also counted the number of irregularities along a 10 micron segment and found the Idahone averaged 2.3 and the Arkansas averaged 2.8. This, again, is not statistically significant.
To conduct the test, the authors started with 39 new Gracey curets, sharpened them with one of the two stones, and then used them to root plane a section of root surface. The cutting edge and root surface were measured in and SEM.