Jost-Brinkmann P G
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School, University Clinic Charité, Medical Faculty, Humboldt University, Berlin.
J Orofac Orthop. 1998;59(1):1-16. doi: 10.1007/BF01321551.
This study compares the effect of 4 different air-powder abrasive devices (PWS) (Air-Flow-S1, Clean-Jet, Prophy-Jet 30, Prophy-Unit) on tooth enamel. Freshly extracted bovine teeth were partially embedded in polyurethane, the labial surface ground flat and highly polished. Subsequently the teeth were subjected to the spray from the air-powder abrasive device for 60 s or polished with a prophylactic paste (CCS 170, CCS 250 or Cleanic) for the same length of time. The effects of the different air-powder abrasive systems were tested under multiple adjustments of powder/air and water. In addition the effects of air-powder abrasive systems and prophylactic pastes on several dentin surfaces were measured. The resulting surface textures of the teeth were examined using laser optic profilometry. In this process multiple measurements of roughness as well as tooth erosion were determined. The Clean-Jet led to significantly rougher surfaces than the 3 prophylactic pastes at every setting. The Air-Flow-S1, Prophy-Jet 30 and Prophy-Unit resulted in enamel abrasion that was either less than that caused by the prophylactic pastes or not significantly different at every examined setting. The 3 polishing pastes removed 3.6 microns to 7.2 microns of enamel in 60 s. The Clean-Jet removed significantly more enamel at every setting per unit of time than the prophylactic pastes (up to 0.1 mm/min); therefore routine application of this device is not advised. Enamel abrasion by the Air-Flow-S1, Prophy-Jet 30 and Prophy-Unit was either less than that measured with the prophylactic pastes or not significantly different. However, the Air-Flow-S1 was more abrasive than Cleanic paste at maximum water adjustment. The Air-Flow-S1 removed 641.2 microns/min of dentin compared to 339.6 microns/min by the Prophy-Jet 30.
本研究比较了4种不同的气粉磨蚀装置（PWS）（气流S1型、洁喷、预防喷30型、预防单元）对牙釉质的影响。将新鲜拔除的牛牙部分嵌入聚氨酯中，将唇面磨平并高度抛光。随后，将牙齿用气粉磨蚀装置喷射60秒，或用预防性糊剂（CCS 170、CCS 250或克林尼克）抛光相同的时间。在粉末/空气和水的多种调节条件下测试了不同气粉磨蚀系统的效果。此外，还测量了气粉磨蚀系统和预防性糊剂对几个牙本质表面的影响。使用激光光学轮廓仪检查牙齿产生的表面纹理。在此过程中，测定了粗糙度以及牙齿侵蚀的多次测量值。在每种设置下，洁喷导致的表面粗糙度明显高于3种预防性糊剂。气流S1型、预防喷30型和预防单元导致的牙釉质磨损在每种检查设置下要么小于预防性糊剂造成的磨损，要么没有显著差异。3种抛光糊剂在60秒内去除了3.6微米至7.2微米的牙釉质。在每种设置下，洁喷每单位时间去除的牙釉质明显多于预防性糊剂（高达0.1毫米/分钟）；因此，不建议常规使用该装置。气流S1型、预防喷30型和预防单元造成的牙釉质磨损要么小于用预防性糊剂测量的值，要么没有显著差异。然而，在最大水调节量下，气流S1型比克林尼克糊剂的磨蚀性更强。气流S1型每分钟去除641.2微米的牙本质，而预防喷30型为339.6微米/分钟。
