Quintessence Int. 2021;52(3):264-274. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a45602.
Objective: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes in dental prophylaxis between rubber cup polishing and an air polishing system using erythritol powder, with or without prior dental plaque disclosure. Method and materials: In this single-blind, randomized, controlled, split-mouth clinical trial, healthy participants with full-mouth plaque score ≥ 60% were recruited. Quadrants in each participant were randomly assigned to four treatment groups: air polishing with prior plaque disclosure; air polishing without plaque disclosure; rubber cup polishing with prior plaque disclosure; or rubber cup polishing without plaque disclosure. Plaque scores and treatment time for each quadrant were recorded. Posttreatment satisfaction questionnaires for both the participants and operators were also completed. Results: In total, 88 participants consisting of 42 men and 46 women (mean age 23.1 ± 2.0 years) were recruited. Air polishing with prior plaque disclosure had significantly lower posttreatment marginal mean plaque score (21.7 ± 17.5%) compared to air polishing (33.5 ± 23.4%) or rubber cup polishing (34.5 ± 19.7%) without prior plaque disclosure (P < .001). Marginal mean treatment time for air polishing (325 seconds; SE = 10 seconds) was significantly shorter compared to rubber cup polishing (407 seconds; SE = 15 seconds) (P < .001). Both the participants and operators preferred air polishing over rubber cup polishing (P < .001). Conclusion: Prior plaque disclosure enhanced the effectiveness of plaque removal. Air polishing exhibited better treatment efficiency than rubber cup polishing and was the patients' and clinicians' preferred treatment modality.
本研究旨在比较使用赤藓糖醇粉的橡胶杯抛光和空气抛光系统在进行牙齿洁治时的临床效果,同时比较有无预先进行牙菌斑显露。方法和材料:在这项单盲、随机、对照、分口临床试验中,招募了全口菌斑指数≥60%的健康参与者。每位参与者的象限被随机分配到四个治疗组:预先进行牙菌斑显露的空气抛光;不预先进行牙菌斑显露的空气抛光;预先进行牙菌斑显露的橡胶杯抛光;或不预先进行牙菌斑显露的橡胶杯抛光。记录每个象限的菌斑评分和治疗时间。还完成了参与者和操作人员对治疗后满意度的问卷调查。结果:共招募了 88 名参与者,包括 42 名男性和 46 名女性(平均年龄 23.1 ± 2.0 岁)。与不预先进行牙菌斑显露的空气抛光(33.5 ± 23.4%)或橡胶杯抛光(34.5 ± 19.7%)相比,预先进行牙菌斑显露的空气抛光后的边际平均菌斑评分(21.7 ± 17.5%)显著降低(P <.001)。空气抛光的边际平均治疗时间(325 秒;SE = 10 秒)明显短于橡胶杯抛光(407 秒;SE = 15 秒)(P <.001)。参与者和操作人员都更喜欢空气抛光而不是橡胶杯抛光(P <.001)。结论:预先进行牙菌斑显露增强了菌斑去除的效果。空气抛光比橡胶杯抛光显示出更好的治疗效率,是患者和临床医生首选的治疗方式。