Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
PLoS One. 2022 Jul 7;17(7):e0270938. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270938. eCollection 2022.
The aim of this in-vitro study is to compare the prophylaxis powder Airflow® Plus to a conventional prophylaxis paste with regards to surface abrasion and roughness on four different restorative materials. A total of 80 samples were fabricated, including 20 of each investigated material. Among those were a nanocomposite (Ceram X Spectra™ ST, Dentsply), a glass ionomer cement (Ketac Fill™, 3M™), a cast metal alloy (Bio Maingold SG®, Heraeus Kulzer) and a ceramic (HeraCeram® Saphir, Heraeus Kulzer). Of each material, all samples were equally divided into two groups. Samples in one group were treated with AirFlow® Plus using the AirFlow® Prophylaxis Master (EMS, Switzerland) (Group AF) and the ones in the other group with Prophy Paste (Cleanic™, Kerr, Austria) (Group CL) on a rubber cup. Applied force amounted to 1.5 N at 2000 rpm. Under controlled reproduceable conditions, a 10-year interval with 4 application per year, a total of 200 seconds, was simulated. Size of each sample amounted to 6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height. Half side of each sample were treated. While comparing the treated and untreated area of each sample, surface abrasion and roughness were measured using an optical 3D system. Roughness was measured based on the arithmetic roughness average of the surface (Ra) and root mean square of the surface roughness (Rq). The statistical evaluation of the data was carried out using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney-U-test, Wilcoxon-test and the Kruskal-Wallis test for group comparisons. In conclusion, the use of the rubber cup with Prophy Paste caused a significantly higher abrasion on composite, ceramic and gold compared to the AirFlow® Plus powder (p < 0.05). In group AF, the significant highest values for Ra were determined on GIC, followed by composite, gold and then ceramic in intragroup comparison. Ra on GIC was significantly higher in group AF (p < 0.05).
本体外研究旨在比较 Airflow® Plus 预防粉与传统预防糊剂在四种不同修复材料表面的磨损和粗糙度。共制作了 80 个样本，每个研究材料 20 个。其中包括纳米复合材料（Ceram X Spectra™ ST，登士柏）、玻璃离子水门汀（Ketac Fill™，3M™）、铸造金属合金（Bio Maingold SG®，贺利氏古莎）和陶瓷（HeraCeram® Saphir，贺利氏古莎）。对于每种材料，所有样本均平均分为两组。一组样本用 AirFlow® Prophylaxis Master（EMS，瑞士）上的 AirFlow® Plus（组 AF）处理，另一组用 Prophy Paste（Cleanic™，科尔）处理（组 CL）在橡胶杯上。施加的力为 1.5 N，转速为 2000 rpm。在可控制的可重复条件下，模拟了每年应用 4 次、总时长 200 秒、共 10 年的间隔。每个样本的尺寸为直径 6 毫米，高度 2 毫米。每个样本的一半侧面进行处理。在比较每个样本的处理和未处理区域时，使用光学 3D 系统测量表面磨损和粗糙度。粗糙度是基于表面算术粗糙度平均值（Ra）和表面粗糙度均方根（Rq）来测量的。数据的统计评估使用非参数曼-惠特尼 U 检验、Wilcoxon 检验和 Kruskal-Wallis 检验进行组间比较。结论是，与 AirFlow® Plus 粉末相比，使用 Prophy Paste 橡胶杯会导致复合材料、陶瓷和金的磨损明显增加（p < 0.05）。在组 AF 中，GIC 的 Ra 值最高，其次是复合材料、金，然后是陶瓷，组内比较。在组 AF 中，GIC 的 Ra 值明显更高（p < 0.05）。
