Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Use of a continual sweep motion to compare air polishing devices, powders and exposure time on unexposed root cementum.
Herr, Mandy L; DeLong, Ralph; Li, Yuping; Lunos, Scott A; Stoltenberg, Jill L.
Afiliação
  • Herr ML; Department of Primary Dental Care, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 9-372 Moos HST, 515 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, USA.
  • DeLong R; Department of Restorative Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Li Y; Department of Restorative Sciences, Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Lunos SA; Biostatistical Design and Analysis Center, Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Stoltenberg JL; Department of Primary Dental Care, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 9-372 Moos HST, 515 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, USA. stolt001@umn.edu.
Odontology ; 105(3): 311-319, 2017 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28070701
ABSTRACT
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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pós / Cemento Dentário / Polimento Dentário / Glicina Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pós / Cemento Dentário / Polimento Dentário / Glicina Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article