Use of a continual sweep motion to compare air polishing devices, powders and exposure time on unexposed root cementum

被引:0
作者
Mandy L. Herr
Ralph DeLong
Yuping Li
Scott A. Lunos
Jill L. Stoltenberg
机构
[1] University of Minnesota,Department of Primary Dental Care, School of Dentistry
[2] University of Minnesota,Department of Restorative Sciences, School of Dentistry
[3] University of Minnesota,Department of Restorative Sciences, Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, School of Dentistry
[4] University of Minnesota,Biostatistical Design and Analysis Center, Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute
来源
Odontology | 2017年 / 105卷
关键词
Air polishing; Standard tip; Glycine powders; Sodium bicarbonate powder; Dental cementum;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Low abrasive air polishing powders are a viable method for subgingival biofilm removal. This in vitro study evaluated the effects of air polishing using a standard tip on cementum following clinically recommended protocols. Forty-eight teeth were randomly divided into eight groups with six teeth per group. Teeth were treated using either a Hu-Friedy EMS or DENTSPLY Cavitron® air polishing device. One of three glycine powders (Air-flow 25 µm, Clinpro 45 μm, Clinpro+TCP 45 μm) or a sodium bicarbonate powder (NaHCO3  85 μm) was sprayed on cementum using a clinically relevant sweeping motion. Volume and depth of cementum removed after 5 and 90 s exposures were calculated. Surface texture was evaluated using SEMs taken following the last exposure. After 5 s exposures, neither unit nor powder had a substantial effect on volume loss or defect depth. After 90 s exposures, differences between powders existed only for the DENTSPLY unit (p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons for this unit revealed mean volume loss and maximum defect depth were greater for NaHCO3 85 μm than the glycine powders (p < 0.0001). The 90 s exposure produced greater mean volume loss and defect depth for all powders (p < 0.0001). SEM images revealed dentinal tubule exposure with all powders; however, exposed tubules were larger and more prevalent for NaHCO3 85 μm. Root surface loss was similar for glycine powders evaluated in this study. Differences in powder performance between units may be related to tip apertures and spray patterns. Additional research is needed to determine if cementum loss is greater than what occurs with conventional biofilm removal methods, such as curets and ultrasonic scalers.
引用
收藏
页码:311 / 319
页数:8
相关论文
共 93 条
[1]  
Atkinson DR(1984)The effect of an air powder abrasive system on in vitro root surfaces J Periodontol 55 13-18
[2]  
Cobb CM(1984)Air polishing effects on enamel, dentine, cement and bone Br Dent J 156 287-291
[3]  
Killoy WJ(2001)Abrasiveness of an air-powder polishing system on root surfaces in vitro Quintessence lnt 32 407-411
[4]  
Boyde A(1987)Rate of removal of tooth structure by the use of the Prophy-Jet device J Periodontol 58 464-469
[5]  
Agger M(2003)Root defects following air polishing J Clin Periodontol 30 165-170
[6]  
Horsted-Bindslev P(2013)Air polishing: a review of the current literature J Dent Hyg 87 173-180
[7]  
Hovgaard O(2005)Effect of air-polishing devices on the gingiva: histologic study in the canine J Clin Periodontol 32 329-334
[8]  
Galloway SE(2013)Subgingival air polishing Dimens Dent Hyg 12 1-6
[9]  
Pashley DH(2003)Subgingival plaque removal at interdental sites using a low-abrasive air polishing powder J Periodontol 74 307-311
[10]  
Petersilka GJ(2003)Subgingival plaque removal in buccal and lingual sites using a novel low abrasive air-polishing powder J Clin Periodontol 30 328-333