IADR Abstract Archives
Air-Polishing: Investigation of Cleaning Performance and Abrasiveness of Different Powders
Objectives: Aim of this in-vitro study was to investigate air-polishing powders regarding their cleaning performance and abrasiveness on enamel. Powders differentiate in raw material, particle size (PZ) and recommended application (supragingival vs. sub-/supragingival).
Methods: Air-polishing was performed on embedded and polished enamel samples fixed in an automated set-up realizing reproducible movements under the handpiece of the powder-jet device (MyLunos®, Dürr Dental SE). Cleaning performance was evaluated by colour measurements (L*a*b*-values) on initial samples, after a staining procedure and after air-polishing. Abrasiveness was investigated on unstained samples by measuring surface roughness (mechanical profilometry) before and after air-polishing.
Three supragingival powders with mean PZ 65 µm were tested: sodium bicarbonate (PROPHYflex™ Powder, KaVo), glycine (AIR-FLOW® Powder Soft, EMS) and trehalose (Lunos® Gentle Clean, Dürr Dental SE).
Four sub-/supragingival powders were investigated: erythritol (AIR-FLOW® Powder Plus, EMS, PZ14 µm), glycine (AIR-FLOW® Powder Perio, EMS, PZ 25 µm and ClinPro Prophy Powder, 3M ESPE, PZ unknown) and trehalose (Lunos® Perio Combi, Dürr Dental SE, PZ 30 µm).
Results: Supragingival: Similar cleaning performance was observed for trehalose (89%±11.4%), glycine (82.9%±5.8%) and sodium bicarbonate powder (77.0%±10.7%), whereas trehalose treatment showed the lowest abrasiveness.
Sub-/supragingival: Trehalose, erythritol and glycine (3M ESPE) powders showed similar cleaning performance between 76.9%±11.6% and 79%±8.4%. A treatment with glycine powder (EMS) led to slightly lower cleaning performance (68.1%±14.9%). Abrasiveness was inversely proportional to the cleaning performance; glycine (EMS) showed higher roughness Ra than the other powders.
Low cleaning performance (14.9%±9%) and abrasiveness were determined for water as negative control.
Conclusions: All powders confirmed their efficacy for supragingival air-polishing under given experimental conditions. Trehalose revealed best efficacy for supragingival application. For sub-/supragingival treatment, best and similar combination of effective cleaning performance and lowest abrasiveness was determined for trehalose, erythritol and glycine (3M ESPE). This study can be basis for recommendations in individual prophylaxis treatment.
Methods: Air-polishing was performed on embedded and polished enamel samples fixed in an automated set-up realizing reproducible movements under the handpiece of the powder-jet device (MyLunos®, Dürr Dental SE). Cleaning performance was evaluated by colour measurements (L*a*b*-values) on initial samples, after a staining procedure and after air-polishing. Abrasiveness was investigated on unstained samples by measuring surface roughness (mechanical profilometry) before and after air-polishing.
Three supragingival powders with mean PZ 65 µm were tested: sodium bicarbonate (PROPHYflex™ Powder, KaVo), glycine (AIR-FLOW® Powder Soft, EMS) and trehalose (Lunos® Gentle Clean, Dürr Dental SE).
Four sub-/supragingival powders were investigated: erythritol (AIR-FLOW® Powder Plus, EMS, PZ14 µm), glycine (AIR-FLOW® Powder Perio, EMS, PZ 25 µm and ClinPro Prophy Powder, 3M ESPE, PZ unknown) and trehalose (Lunos® Perio Combi, Dürr Dental SE, PZ 30 µm).
Results: Supragingival: Similar cleaning performance was observed for trehalose (89%±11.4%), glycine (82.9%±5.8%) and sodium bicarbonate powder (77.0%±10.7%), whereas trehalose treatment showed the lowest abrasiveness.
Sub-/supragingival: Trehalose, erythritol and glycine (3M ESPE) powders showed similar cleaning performance between 76.9%±11.6% and 79%±8.4%. A treatment with glycine powder (EMS) led to slightly lower cleaning performance (68.1%±14.9%). Abrasiveness was inversely proportional to the cleaning performance; glycine (EMS) showed higher roughness Ra than the other powders.
Low cleaning performance (14.9%±9%) and abrasiveness were determined for water as negative control.
Conclusions: All powders confirmed their efficacy for supragingival air-polishing under given experimental conditions. Trehalose revealed best efficacy for supragingival application. For sub-/supragingival treatment, best and similar combination of effective cleaning performance and lowest abrasiveness was determined for trehalose, erythritol and glycine (3M ESPE). This study can be basis for recommendations in individual prophylaxis treatment.
