RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of dental prophylactic methods on the surface roughness of enamel. METHODS: Enamel specimens (150) were sectioned from human molars and mounted on resin bases. This work consisted of two parts. In the first, there were eight groups (n = 15). Three groups were treated with two air-polishing devices (AP)LM-ProPower AirLED (Mode 1 and 2) and EMS Air-Flow Handy 2for 30 seconds and sodium bicarbonate prophylactic powder, and three other groups were treated with the two air-polishing devices using microsphere calcium carbonate prophylactic powder. The seventh group was treated with rubber-cup polishing using medium and fine grits (Oral-B prophy paste), and the eighth (control) was enamel with no surface treatment. In the second part of the work, two groups (n = 15) were subjected to treatment with the LM unit (Mode 2) and each of the abrasive powders for 5 seconds. Surface roughness (Ra) of samples was assessed using a mechanical stylus profilometer and scanning electron microscope (SEM). Statistical analysis of the data was conducted using two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD (honest significant difference) rank order test at P = 0.05. RESULTS: Both prophylactic methods resulted in a statistically significant increase in surface roughness (P < 0.05) when compared to untreated specimens. All air-abrasive treatments for 30 seconds resulted in an increase in roughness compared to rubber-cup prophylaxis (P < 0.05). However, AP with calcium carbonate and the sodium bicarbonate for 5 seconds produced results that were not significantly different from rubber-cup prophylaxis (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both types of prophylactic dental cleaning have an effect on surface roughness. The abrasiveness of APs depends upon the length of treatment and the type of powder used.
