Herr Mandy L, DeLong Ralph, Li Yuping, Lunos Scott A, Stoltenberg Jill L
Department of Primary Dental Care, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 9-372 Moos HST, 515 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, USA.
Department of Restorative Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Odontology. 2017 Jul;105(3):311-319. doi: 10.1007/s10266-016-0282-1. Epub 2017 Jan 9.
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 (NaHCO 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 NaHCO 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 NaHCO 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.
低磨蚀性空气抛光粉是一种可行的龈下生物膜去除方法。这项体外研究按照临床推荐方案评估了使用标准喷头进行空气抛光对牙骨质的影响。48颗牙齿被随机分为8组，每组6颗。使用Hu-Friedy EMS或登士柏Cavitron空气抛光设备对牙齿进行处理。使用临床相关的扫动动作，将三种甘氨酸粉末（Air-flow 25μm、Clinpro 45μm、Clinpro+TCP 45μm）之一或碳酸氢钠粉末（NaHCO 85μm）喷洒在牙骨质上。计算暴露5秒和90秒后去除的牙骨质体积和深度。在最后一次暴露后，使用扫描电子显微镜评估表面纹理。暴露5秒后，无论是设备还是粉末对体积损失或缺损深度都没有实质性影响。暴露90秒后，仅登士柏设备的粉末之间存在差异（p < 0.0001）。该设备的两两比较显示，NaHCO 85μm的平均体积损失和最大缺损深度大于甘氨酸粉末（p < 0.0001）。所有粉末在90秒暴露后均产生了更大的平均体积损失和缺损深度（p < 0.0001）。扫描电子显微镜图像显示，所有粉末都导致牙本质小管暴露；然而，NaHCO 85μm暴露的小管更大且更普遍。本研究中评估的甘氨酸粉末的牙根表面损失相似。设备之间粉末性能的差异可能与喷头孔径和喷雾模式有关。需要进一步研究以确定牙骨质损失是否大于传统生物膜去除方法（如刮治器和超声洁牙器）所造成的损失。
