Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of a continual sweep motion to compare air polishing devices, powders and exposure time on unexposed root cementum

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Odontology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 (NaHCO3  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 NaHCO3 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 NaHCO3 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Atkinson DR, Cobb CM, Killoy WJ. The effect of an air powder abrasive system on in vitro root surfaces. J Periodontol. 1984;55:13–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Boyde A. Air polishing effects on enamel, dentine, cement and bone. Br Dent J. 1984;156(8):287–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Agger M, Horsted-Bindslev P, Hovgaard O. Abrasiveness of an air-powder polishing system on root surfaces in vitro. Quintessence lnt. 2001;32:407–11.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Galloway SE, Pashley DH. Rate of removal of tooth structure by the use of the Prophy-Jet device. J Periodontol. 1987;58:464–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Petersilka GJ, Bell M, Mehl A, Hickel R, Flemmig TF. Root defects following air polishing. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30:165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Graumann SJ, Sensat ML, Stoltenberg JL. Air polishing: a review of the current literature. J Dent Hyg. 2013;87(4):173–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kozlovsky A, Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE, Hirshberg A. Effect of air-polishing devices on the gingiva: histologic study in the canine. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32(4):329–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Daubert DM. Subgingival air polishing. Dimens Dent Hyg. 2013;12:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Petersilka GJ, Tunkel J, Barakos K, Heinecke A, Häberlein I, Flemmig TF. Subgingival plaque removal at interdental sites using a low-abrasive air polishing powder. J Periodontol. 2003;74(3):307–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Petersilka GJ, Steinmann D, Häberlein I, Heinecke A, Flemmig TF. Subgingival plaque removal in buccal and lingual sites using a novel low abrasive air-polishing powder. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30(4):328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pelka M, Trautmann S, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Influence of air-polishing devices and abrasives on root dentin—an in vitro confocal laser scanning microscope study. Quintessence Int. 2010;41(7):141–8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Petersilka GJ, Bell M, Häberlein I, Mehl A, Hickel R, Flemmig TF. In vitro evaluation of novel low abrasive air polishing powders. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30(1):9–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sahrmann P, Ronay V, Schmidlin PR, Attin T, Paqué F. 3-D defect evaluation of air polishing on extracted human roots. J Periodontol. 2014;85(8):1107–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berkstein S, Reiff RL, McKinney JF. Supragingival root surface removal during maintenance procedures utilizing an air-powder abrasive system or hand scaling. J Periodontol. 1987;58(5):327–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coldiron NB, Yukna RA, Weir J, Caudill RF. A quantitative study of cementum removal with hand curettes. J Periodontol. 1990;61(5):293–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gantes BG, Nilveus R. The effects of different hygiene instruments on titanium surfaces: SEM observations. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 1991;11:225–39.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kocher T, König J, Hansen P, Rühling A. Subgingival polishing compared to scaling with steel curettes: a clinical pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28(2):194–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pameijer CH, Stallard RE, Hiep N. Surface characteristics of teeth following periodontal instrumentation: a scanning electron microscope study. J Periodontol. 1972;43(10):628–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Woodruff HC, Levin MP, Brady JM. The effects of two ultrasonic instruments on root surfaces. J Periodontol. 1975;46(2):119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Waerhaug J. Healing of the dento-epithelial junction following subgingival plaque control. II: as observed on extracted teeth. J Periodontol. 1978;49(30):119–1934.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones S, Lozdan J, Boyde. Tooth surfaces treated in situ with periodontal instruments: scanning electron microscopic studies. Br Dent J. 1972;132(2):57–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zappa U, Smith B, Simona C, Graf H, Case D, Kim W. Root substance removal by scaling and root planing. J Periodontol. 1991;62(12):750–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B. Working parameters of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler influencing root substance removal in vitro. J Periodontol. 1998;69(5):547–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Waerhaug J. Pathogenesis of periodontal diseases. Br Dent J. 1970;129(4):181–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Belting CM, Spjut PJ. Effects of high-speed periodontal instruments on the root surface during subgingival calculus removal. J Am Dent Assoc. 1964;69(11):578–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim JJ. Dentinal hypersensitivity management. In: Darby ML, Walsh MM, editors. Dental hygiene theory and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2015. p. 696–706.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tada K, Kiyoshi K, Ogura H, Sato S. Effect of particle diameter on air polishing of dentin surfaces. Odontology. 2010;98:31–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tada K, Wiroj S, Inatomi M, Sato S. The characterization of dentin defects produced by air polishing. Odontology. 2012;100:41–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by NIH Grant #UL1TR000114 of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). 3M ESPE provided the DENTSPLY unit and air polishing powders used in this study. The authors acknowledge the Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics (MDRCBB) for the technical support provided during the conduct of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Primary Dental Care, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 9-372 Moos HST, 515 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, USA

    Mandy L. Herr & Jill L. Stoltenberg

  2. Department of Restorative Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

    Ralph DeLong

  3. Department of Restorative Sciences, Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

    Yuping Li

  4. Biostatistical Design and Analysis Center, Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

    Scott A. Lunos

Authors
  1. Mandy L. Herr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ralph DeLong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuping Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Scott A. Lunos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jill L. Stoltenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill L. Stoltenberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herr, M.L., DeLong, R., Li, Y. et al. Use of a continual sweep motion to compare air polishing devices, powders and exposure time on unexposed root cementum. Odontology 105, 311–319 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0282-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0282-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation