Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
PLoS One. 2024 Feb 26;19(2):e0286672. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286672. eCollection 2024.
This ex vivo study aimed to investigate surface roughness and substance loss after treatment with different professional cleaning methods and to determine whether subsequent polishing with a rubber cup and polishing paste is necessary. Samples (flat and natural surfaces) of human enamel and dentin were prepared (baseline) and treated with either a curette, air-polishing with erythritol, a rubber cup and polishing paste, or a combination thereof (treatment). Subsequently, all samples were immersed in an ultrasonic bath (ultrasonic) to remove residues from the treatment procedures. The surface roughness values sRa and sRz as well as tissue loss were measured profilometrically. Linear regression models were used to compare group differences (roughness and loss) considering the corresponding baseline value. The significance level was set at p<0.05. sRa increased significantly after treatment with curettes or air-polishing with erythritol in both enamel (p<0.001) and dentin (p<0.001) of flat samples. The same effect was observed for sRz in dentin (p<0.001) but not for enamel compared to negative control. Polishing with a rubber cup and paste alone had no significant effect on roughness values. When combined with other treatments, the effect of curette or air-polishing with erythritol dominated the effect. In enamel, none of the tested methods led to measurable tissue loss. In dentin, air-polishing with erythritol caused ≤50% tissue loss compared to the curette. Conclusively, for enamel, treatment effects on roughness were measurable but of limited clinical relevance. For dentin, air-polishing resulted in a smaller but insignificant roughness increase and less tissue loss compared to the curette. Polishing with a rubber cup and paste did not affect surface roughness. Regarding the clinical application, the use of air-polishing seems to be a less invasive procedure than using a curette; polishing with rubber cup and paste offers no advantage in terms of reducing roughness as a final procedure.
本离体研究旨在探讨不同专业清洁方法处理后表面粗糙度和物质损失情况，并确定随后使用橡胶杯和抛光膏进行抛光是否有必要。制备人牙釉质和牙本质的（平面和自然表面）样本（基线），并用刮匙、使用赤藓糖醇的空气喷砂、橡胶杯和抛光膏或两者的组合（处理）进行处理。随后，所有样本均在超声浴中（超声）中浸泡以去除处理过程中的残留物。使用轮廓仪测量表面粗糙度值 sRa 和 sRz 以及组织损失。使用线性回归模型比较考虑相应基线值的组间差异（粗糙度和损失）。显著水平设为 p<0.05。在用刮匙或使用赤藓糖醇的空气喷砂处理后，牙釉质（p<0.001）和牙本质（p<0.001）的平面样本的 sRa 显著增加。在牙本质中也观察到 sRz 的相同影响（p<0.001），但与阴性对照相比，牙釉质则没有。单独使用橡胶杯和抛光膏对粗糙度值没有显著影响。当与其他处理方法结合使用时，刮匙或使用赤藓糖醇的空气喷砂处理的效果占主导地位。在牙釉质中，没有一种测试方法导致可测量的组织损失。在牙本质中，与刮匙相比，使用赤藓糖醇的空气喷砂处理导致的组织损失≤50%。综上所述，对于牙釉质，处理对粗糙度的影响是可测量的，但具有有限的临床相关性。对于牙本质，与刮匙相比，空气喷砂处理导致的粗糙度增加较小且无统计学意义，并且组织损失较小。使用橡胶杯和抛光膏不会影响表面粗糙度。在临床应用中，与使用刮匙相比，空气喷砂似乎是一种侵入性较小的程序；作为最终程序，使用橡胶杯和抛光膏进行抛光在降低粗糙度方面没有优势。
