We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 41 (2010), No. 7-8     4. June 2010
Quintessence Int 41 (2010), No. 7-8  (04.06.2010)

Online Article, Page 611, PubMed:20614037

Online Article: Influence of air-polishing devices and abrasives on root dentin-An in vitro confocal laser scanning microscope study
Pelka, Matthias / Trautmann, Sandra / Petschelt, Anselm / Lohbauer, Ullrich
Objective: To assess the influence of air-polishing devices and various abrasives on flat root surfaces.
Method and Materials: A total of 168 natural teeth were embedded in polyurethane resin and treated with airborne-particle abrasion using two air-polishing devices (Prophyflex 3, KaVo; EMS Handy, EMS), four abrasives (Airflow powder, EMS; Cleaning powder, KaVo; ClinPro powder, 3M ESPE; and ProphyPearls, KaVo), and three treatment times (5, 10, and 20 seconds). Defects were quantified using a confocal laser scanning microscope.
Results: The Prophyflex device clearly generated deeper substance defects compared to the EMS device, regardless of abrasive used (Kruskal-Wallis, P = .004). ProphyPearls abrasive caused the deepest defects with both devices. ClinPro powder produced the least amount of defects. Defect depths increased significantly for all abrasives with increasing treatment times (Kruskal-Wallis, P = .01), and all abrasives except ClinPro powder caused substantial volume loss.
Conclusion: The abrasiveness of air-polishing powders differs depending on the polishing device used. ProphyPearls caused more substance loss than ClinPro powder.

Keywords: airborne-particle abrasion, glycine powder, NaHCO3, ProphyPearls, root defects, root dentin