Fratolin Melissa M, Bianco Vinicius Capo, Santos Maria Jacinta Moraes Coelho, Rizkalla Amin S, Santos Gildo Coelho
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2014 Oct;35(9):e31-5.
To assess the effect of dental prophylactic methods on the surface roughness of enamel.
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 2—for 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.
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).
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.
评估牙齿预防方法对牙釉质表面粗糙度的影响。
从人类磨牙上切取150个牙釉质样本,并安装在树脂基座上。这项工作分为两部分。第一部分有八组(n = 15)。三组使用两种空气抛光设备(AP)——LM-ProPower AirLED(模式1和2)和EMS Air-Flow Handy 2——处理30秒,并使用碳酸氢钠预防用粉末,另外三组使用两种空气抛光设备并使用微球碳酸钙预防用粉末。第七组使用中细粒度的橡胶杯抛光(Oral-B预防膏),第八组(对照组)为未进行表面处理的牙釉质。在工作的第二部分,两组(n = 15)使用LM设备(模式2)和每种磨料粉末处理5秒。使用机械触针轮廓仪和扫描电子显微镜(SEM)评估样本的表面粗糙度(Ra)。使用双向方差分析和Tukey HSD(真实显著差异)秩和检验对数据进行统计分析,P = 0.05。
与未处理的样本相比,两种预防方法均导致表面粗糙度有统计学显著增加(P < 0.05)。与橡胶杯预防相比,所有30秒的空气研磨处理均导致粗糙度增加(P < 0.05)。然而,使用碳酸钙和碳酸氢钠的空气抛光处理5秒产生的结果与橡胶杯预防没有显著差异(P > 0.05)。
两种类型的牙齿预防性清洁均对表面粗糙度有影响。空气抛光设备的磨蚀性取决于处理时间和所用粉末的类型。