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 46 (2015), No. 1     10. Nov. 2014
Quintessence Int 46 (2015), No. 1  (10.11.2014)

Page 31-41, doi:10.3290/j.qi.a32817, PubMed:25262675

The effects of erythritol air-polishing powder on microbiologic and clinical outcomes during supportive periodontal therapy: Six-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial
Hägi, Tobias T. / Hofmänner, Petra / Eick, Sigrun / Donnet, Marcel / Salvi, Giovanni E. / Sculean, Anton / Ramseier, Christoph A.
Objectives: To characterize the physical characteristics of a new low abrasive erythritol powder (EPAP) and to evaluate its influence on the clinical and microbiologic parameters over a period of 6 months in patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).
Method and Materials: Prior to the clinical application, the particle size and abrasion level of EPAP were compared to glycine air-polishing powder (GPAP) ex vivo. Subsequently, 40 chronic periodontitis patients previously enrolled in SPT were randomly assigned into two groups for the treatment with subgingival EPAP or repeated scaling and root planing (SRP). At baseline (BL), bleeding on probing positive (BOP+) sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≥ 4 mm but no detectable calculus were defined as study sites. During SPT, these sites were either treated by EPAP or SRP at BL, 3, and 6 months (3M, 6M). When indicated, additional SRP was provided. Plaque Index, BOP, PPD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and subgingival plaque were evaluated at BL and 6M.
Results: EPAP yielded lower abrasiveness and smaller particle sizes when compared to GPAP. In 38 patients completing the study, EPAP and SRP resulted in significant reductions of BOP% (EPAP, 40.45%; SRP, 42.53%), PPD (EPAP, -0.67; SRP, -0.68), and increase of CAL (EPAP, 0.48; SRP, 0.61) while at 6M no statistically significant between-group differences were observed (P > .05). Microbiologic evaluation revealed minor shifts in the composition of the subgingival biofilm without influence on periodontopathogenic bacteria.
Conclusion: The subgingival use of EPAP by means of an air-polishing device may be considered safe and may lead to comparable clinical and microbiologic outcomes to those obtained with SRP. Clinical Relevance: The subgingival use of EPAP appears to represent a promising modality for the removal of subgingival biofilm during SPT.

Keywords: air polishing, bleeding on probing, erythritol, hard tissue loss, supportive periodontal therapy