Efficacy of glycine powder air polishing in comparison with sodium bicarbonate air polishing and ultrasonic scaling - a double-blind clinico-histopathologic study

Efficacy of Biofilm Removal on the Dental Implant Surface by Sodium Bicarbonate and Erythritol Powder Airflow System

OBJECTIVE

 Peri-implantitis is a common complication in implant therapy and it is one of the main contributing factors to implant failure. This can be prevented by regular maintenance with mechanical debridement. One of the recent mechanical debridement methods is air abrasion therapy using different abrasive powders. This study aimed to evaluate the two common abrasive powders of different sizes (sodium bicarbonate and erythritol) for their biofilm cleaning efficacy on dental implant surfaces.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 In an in vitro setting, a total of 33 implants were divided into three groups: Group 1 (n =11) = no treatment; group 2 (n = 11) = air abrasion therapy treated group using a sodium bicarbonate powder (AIRFLOW Powder Classic Comfort, EMS Electro Medical Systems, Nyon, Switzerland); and group 3 (n = 11) = air abrasion therapy treated group using an erythritol powder (AIRFLOW Powder Plus, EMS Electro Medical Systems, Nyon, Switzerland). The implants in each group were subjected to biofilm formation, and group 2 and group 3 were treated with air abrasion therapy of two different powders having different sizes with the same settings. The particle sizes were sodium bicarbonate (40 µm) and erythritol (14µm). The surface characteristics of the dental implants in three groups were studied from a digital camera and under the scanning electron microscope at different magnifications. The comparison of biofilm-removal efficacy between the three groups was performed by using a one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc Dunnett's T3 test. A p-value less than 0.05 was chosen to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

 There were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) between the two powder-treated groups for the biofilm cleaning efficacy. However, both groups showed significantly better biofilm-cleaning efficacy than the control group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

 This suggests that both powders are effective in removing biofilm from the implant surface under ideal conditions. However, there was no clear distinction between the cleaning potential of the two powders, as both performed in a similar manner.

Clinical evaluation of a novel protocol for supportive periodontal care: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and the patient perception of subgingival debridement with either guided biofilm management (GBM) or conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) during supportive periodontal care (SPC).

METHODS

Forty-one patients in SPC were randomly assigned to either treatment with GBM or SRP every 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of bleeding on probing (BoP) at 1 year. Moreover, pocket probing depths (PPD), recession, and furcation involvements were also measured. Full-mouth and specific site analyzes were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months of SPC. Patient comfort was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 12 months.

RESULTS

At 1 year, mean BoP percentage decreased from 12.2% to 9.0% (p = 0.191) and from 14.7% to 7.9% (p = 0.004) for the GBM and SRP groups, respectively. Furcation involved multirooted teeth but no through-and-through lesions were significantly fewer in the GBM than in the SRP group after 12 months (p = 0.015). The remaining parameters showed slight improvement in both groups without any statistically significant differences between the two groups after 1 year. Pain evaluation as patient reported outcome measures (pain evaluation) was in favor (p = 0.347) of the SRP group, while overall satisfaction was similar for both groups. Treatment time was not statistically significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.188).

CONCLUSION

In well-maintained SPC patients, SRP protocols resulted in significant clinical improvements in terms of BoP; however, for the other clinical improvements, similar efficacy for both GBM and SRP was observed.

Subgingival Use of Air-Polishing Powders: Status of Knowledge: A Systematic Review

Effective subgingival biofilm removal is crucial for achieving positive and stable outcomes in periodontal therapy, forming an indispensable part of any periodontal treatment approach. The development of air-polishing tools has emerged as a promising alternative to hand and ultrasonic scalers for dental biofilm removal. The objective of this systematic review was to assess existing literature regarding the subgingival use of various types of air-polishing powders, as an effective method of subgingival biofilm control. For this, 55 articles on this subjected were sourced from searched databases and subjected to an evaluation process of their contained information, which was subsequently structured and compiled into this manuscript. The existing literature acknowledges that good subgingival biofilm control is essential for the success of periodontal therapy, including through subgingival air-polishing, as an adjunctive procedure. This approach has the potential to enhance patient comfort during and after subgingival mechanical plaque removal, thereby mitigating damage to periodontal structures. Consequently, it may lead to improved healing capabilities within the periodontal tissues and the formation of a more stable reparative gingival junctional epithelium.

The efficacy of air polishing devices in supportive periodontal therapy: Clinical, microbiological and patient-centred outcomes. A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to compare air polishing devices with conventional periodontal therapy (hand instrumentation and/or ultrasonic debridement), in terms of their clinical, microbiological and patient-related outcomes in patients undergoing periodontal maintenance therapy.

METHODS

An online database search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1987 and March 2021. Selection, data extraction and assessment risk of individual bias were conducted by two independent reviewers. The PICO method was employed to formulate the question: "In patients undergoing periodontal maintenance therapy/supportive periodontal therapy, do air polishing systems result in better clinical, microbiological and patient related outcomes than ultrasonic instrumentation or hand instrumentation?" Primary outcomes were bleeding on probing, gingival index and/or bleeding index. Secondary outcomes were probing depth, clinical attachment level, plaque index, microbiological counts and/or patient tolerance. The risk of bias was evaluated and the systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 501 references of which 14 were included in this review. A meta-analysis was not performed due to great heterogeneity within the studies. Air polishing devices and conventional periodontal therapy presented identical results in the 14 studies analysed; however, air polishing devices presented better antimicrobial behaviour and better patient-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Both air polishing devices and conventional techniques demonstrated no difference in terms of clinical efficacy; however, air polishing devices seem to present improved antimicrobial results. In addition, they are also a safer, faster and more comfortable option for patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy.

The Current Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Activities of Synthetic/Herbal/Biomaterials in Dental Application

Herbal and chemical products are used for oral care and biofilm treatment and also have been reported to be controversial in the massive trials conducted in this regard. The present review is aimed at evaluating the potential of relevant herbal and chemical products and comparing their outcomes to conventional oral care products and summarizing the current state of evidence of the antibiofilm properties of different products by evaluating studies from the past eleven years. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), essential oils (EOs), and acetylpyridinium chloride were, respectively, the most commonly studied agents in the included studies. As confirmed by all systematic reviews, CHX and EO significantly control the plaque formation and gingival indices. Fluoride is another interesting reagent in oral care products that has shown promising results of oral health improvement, but the evidence quality needs to be refined. The synergy between natural plants and chemical products should be targeted in the future to accede to the formation of new, efficient, and healthy anticaries strategies. Moreover, to discover their biofilm-interfering or biofilm-inhibiting activities, effective clinical trials are needed. In this review article, therapeutic applications of herbal/chemical materials in oral biofilm infections are discussed in recent years (2010-2022).

Efficacy of air polishing in comparison with hand instruments and/or power-driven instruments in supportive periodontal therapy and implant maintenance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is the key for a stable periodontal health following active treatment. Likewise, implant maintenance is crucial following implant placement. This systematic review aimed to assess clinical outcomes, patients' perception, and cost-effectiveness of repeated periodontal therapy with air polishing devices (APDs) in comparison with hand instruments and/or power-driven instruments (conventional interventions) in SPT and implant maintenance.

METHODS

Electronic search for randomised controlled clinical trials with minimum 6 months follow-up for SPT and implant maintenance programme was conducted for data published from 01 January 2000 to 30 April 2020 using multiple databases and hand searching. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB 2).

RESULTS

A total of 823 articles were screened. 4 SPT and 2 implant maintenance studies were eligible for inclusion. For SPT, repeated APDs interventions revealed no statistically significant difference when compared to the conventional interventions (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.11 mm, p = 0.08). Likewise, no statistical difference was noted in terms of percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain. APDs were associated with lower pain score (based on Visual Analogue Scale) and higher patient acceptance in SPT studies. For implant maintenance, APDs resulted in reduction in PPD and percentage of BOP. However, CAL gain was comparable between the two groups. In terms of patient reported outcomes, no implant maintenance studies recorded any forms of patient reported outcomes. In addition, no studies reported on economic evaluation of APDs in both SPT and implant maintenance.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, repeated subgingival debridement using APDs in SPT resulted in similar clinical outcomes but better patients' comfort when compared to the conventional interventions. For implant maintenance, there is limited evidence to show that repeated application of APDs leads to improved clinical outcomes when compared to conventional treatments.

A novel biofilm removal approach (Guided Biofilm Therapy) utilizing erythritol air-polishing and ultrasonic piezo instrumentation: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of biofilm removal of a treatment protocol combining an air-abrasive device using erythritol powder (AIRFLOW®) and an ultrasonic piezon instrumentation (Guided Biofilm Therapy/GBT) compared with the conventional mechanical approach (Scaling and Root Planing/SRP) during supportive periodontal treatment (SPT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients, scheduled for supportive periodontal treatment at the Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Implant Biology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki were randomly assigned to either a GBT (group A: 24 participants) or a SRP (Group B: 26 participants) treatment protocol. Therapeutic interventions and clinical measurements were performed at baseline and repeated at 6 weeks. Oral hygiene instructions were reinforced at each visit. A questionnaire was handed to the participants for evaluation of patient perception of both utilized approaches.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, the two groups showed statistically significant reduction in plaque score and in gingival bleeding index compared with baseline. GBT required approximately 15% less chair-time than SRP with a mean difference of 5.1 min, which was statically significant (p = 0.049). Patient perception was more favourable for GBT than SRP.

CONCLUSIONS

Biofilm removal using erythritol AIRFLOW® and ultrasonic piezo-electric instruments (GBT) can be considered equally efficient compared with the conventional SRP. Moreover, GBT seemed to require shorter treatment time and to exhibit a more favourable patient perception than the conventional approach.

Efficacy evaluation of rubber cup and air polishing techniques using glycine in plaque and stain removal - A clinical trial

Background:

Researchers have proved Glycine to be safe, less abrasive, sweet and comfortable for patients. It is beneficial in removing plaque as well as stains. The present study aims to compare the plaque and extrinsic stain removal efficacy of the air-polishing device and rubber cup prophylaxis technique along with a comparative evaluation of the gingival trauma caused by both the techniques.

Method:

This split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted on a total of 60 subjects in half of whom, left side was assigned to Glycine powder air polishing and the right side to rubber cup prophylaxis with (Glycine powder) and vice versa in the other half. All the subjects had their calculus removed one month prior to the intervention. Plaque index, Stain index and Trauma index were recorded and statistical analysis was done.

Results:

Both the techniques (RCP and AP) demonstrated a significant reduction in plaque and stains within their respective groups, but revealed non-significant differences between the study groups. Gingival trauma was found to be significantly higher in case of AP group. Rubber cup technique was preferred over air polishing by the subjects.

Conclusion

The data indicates that both the techniques were equally beneficial for plaque and stain removal, but rubber cup polishing technique has an advantage over the air polishing technique.

Use of air polishing for supra- and subgingival biofilm removal for treatment of residual periodontal pockets and supportive periodontal care: a systematic review

AIM

To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy of air polishing to hand or ultrasonic instrumentation to reduce periodontal inflammation during treatment of residual pockets or supportive periodontal care.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in five different databases, and two databases were used to capture the "grey literature partially." Clinical trials that compared the use of an air-polishing device to either conventional scaling and root planing (hand and/or ultrasonic instrumentation) or no treatment during periodontal therapy were included without restriction of year and publication status. The Joanna Briggs Institute instrument for clinical trials was used to appraise the studies critically. The results were submitted to qualitative descriptive analysis. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420220156176).

RESULTS

Electronic searches found 1100 hits published between 2008 and 2019. Thirteen studies were included in the review, out of which four had a follow-up longer than 180 days. Results indicated no differences between the efficacy of air polishing and hand or ultrasonic instruments to reduce periodontal inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that there is no difference in the efficacy of air polishing and hand or ultrasonic instrumentation to control biofilm and reduce periodontal inflammation. However, these findings must be carefully interpreted owing to methodological issues, including a short follow-up, and a potential conflict of interest related to industry funding.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Air polishing for biofilm control may be used as an alternative to hand and ultrasonic instrumentation to reduce periodontal inflammation during treatment of residual pockets or supportive periodontal care.

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Effect of Air-Polishing Treatments and Their Influence on Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells Seeded on Titanium Disks

Dental implants are one of the most frequently used treatment options for tooth replacement, and titanium is the metal of choice due to its demonstrated superiority in resisting corrosion, lack of allergic reactions and mechanical strength. Surface roughness of titanium implants favors the osseointegration process; nevertheless, its topography may provide a suitable substrate for bacterial biofilm deposition, causing peri-implantitis and leading to implant failure. Subgingival prophylaxis treatments with cleansing powders aimed to remove the bacterial accumulation are under investigation. Two different air-polishing powders—glycine and tagatose—were assayed for their cleaning and antimicrobial potential against a Pseudomonas biofilm and for their effects on human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs), seeded on sandblasted titanium disks. Immunofluorescence analyses were carried out to evaluate cell adhesion, proliferation, stemness and osteogenic differentiation. The results demonstrate that both the powders have a great in vitro cleaning potential in the early period and do not show any negative effects during hDPSCs osteogenic differentiation process, suggesting their suitability for enhancing the biocompatibility of titanium implants. Our data suggest that the evaluated cleansing systems reduce microbial contamination and allow us to propose tagatose as an adequate alternative to the gold standard glycine for the air-polishing prophylaxis treatment.

Efficacy of glycine powder air-polishing in supportive periodontal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) in patients during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) compared to hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling.

METHODS

The authors searched for randomized clinical trials in 8 electronic databases for relevant studies through November 15, 2019. The eligibility criteria were as follows: population, patients with chronic periodontitis undergoing SPT; intervention and comparison, patients treated by GPAP with a standard/nozzle type jet or mechanical instrumentation; and outcomes, bleeding on probing (BOP), patient discomfort/pain (assessed by a visual analogue scale [VAS]), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (Rec), plaque index (PI), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival epithelium score, and subgingival bacteria count. After extracting the data and assessing the risk of bias, the authors performed the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 17 studies were included in this study. The difference of means for BOP in patients who received GPAP was lower (difference of means: -8.02%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.10% to -3.95%; P<0.00001; I²=10%) than that in patients treated with hand instrumentation. The results of patient discomfort/pain measured by a VAS (difference of means: -1.48, 95% CI, -1.90 to -1.06; P<0.001; I²=83%) indicated that treatment with GPAP might be less painful than ultrasonic scaling. The results of PD, Rec, PI, and CAL showed that GPAP had no advantage over hand instrumentation or ultrasonic scaling.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that GPAP may alleviate gingival inflammation more effectively and be less painful than traditional methods, which makes it a promising alternative for dental clinical use. With regards to PD, Rec, PI, and CAL, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference among GPAP, hand instrumentation, and ultrasonic scaling. Higher-quality studies are still needed to assess the effects of GPAP.

Air polishing with erythritol powder - In vitro effects on dentin loss

Context:

Low-abrasive polishing powders such as glycine (GLY) or erythritol (ERY) are used for subgingival air polishing. GLY was reported to possibly affect the dentin surface, while this is unclear for ERY.

Aims:

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the substance loss from the dentin surface by air polishing with ERY at different settings for pressure (PR), distance (DI), and angulation of the spray jet to the surface (AJ).

Materials and Methods:

The in vitro testing was performed on smooth human root dentin surfaces. In 18 groups with 10 specimens each, ERY was applied with constant water supply for 5 s without moving the handpiece at the following settings: PR minimum (min), medium (med), and maximum (max); DI at 1, 3, and 5 mm; and 45° or 90° AJ. The substance loss was measured as defect depth (DD) using three-dimensional (3D)-laser profilometry. ANOVA with Bonferroni correction and α = 0.05 were used for statistical analysis.

Results:

The DD was statistically significantly higher at a DI of 1 mm compared to a DI of 5 mm for the respective groups of the same PR and AJ (P < 0.05). For DI 1 mm, max PR, and AJ 90°, the maximum loss of substance amounted DD of 117 ± 43 μm. The minimal loss of substance occurred at minimal PR, 45° AJ, and a DI of 5 mm (15 μm × 20 μm). DD related directly with the parameters PR and AJ and inversely with DI. The highest influence on DD was proven for DI.

Conclusions:

Slight loss of dentin might occur during air polishing with ERY depending on DI, PR and AJ. The setting influences the amount of dentin loss.

The effect of supragingival glycine air polishing on periodontitis during maintenance therapy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Glycine air polishing has been proved to be safe, comfortable and time-saving. Whether it could substitute ultrasonic scaling to remove dental plaque biofilm during periodontal maintenance remains unclear. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of supragingival glycine air polishing (SGAP) on the subgingival periodontal pathogens during maintenance therapy and to check the association of periodontal pathogens and clinical parameters.

Methods

Twenty-three chronic periodontitis patients during their maintenance therapy were enrolled in the 12-week study. According to randomized split-mouth design, the test side was treated with SGAP (65 μm), while the control side was treated with supragingival ultrasonic scaling and polishing (SUSP) with rubber cup. Clinical examination including plaque index (PLI), probing depth (PD), bleeding index (BI) were performed at baseline and 12 weeks post-treatment. Sampling of the subgingival plaque at each investigational site (mesiobuccal site of the mandibular first molar) was performed at baseline and 2, 4, 8, 12 weeks after maintenance treatment. Four periodontal pathogens including Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola and Fusobacterium nucleatum were detected by 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction.

Results

Clinical status generally improved after treatment in both groups. PLI in both groups, PD in SGAP group and bleeding on probing (%) in SUSP group significantly decreased after treatment (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference of clinical parameters between two groups before and after treatment. The detection rates of P. gingivalis, T. denticola in both groups, T. forsythia in SUSP group and F. nucleatum in SGAP group decreased after maintenance treatment in both groups, although no significant difference was found, and it rebound to baseline level at 12 weeks after maintenance treatment. There was no significant difference between SGAP group and SUSP group at any time point. T. denticola-positive sites had significantly greater BI than T. denticola-negative sites (p < 0.05).

Discussion

Supragingival glycine air polishing had a reliable effect in removing subgingival dental plaque biofilm during maintenance period, and three months may be a proper maintenance interval for pockets not more than 5 mm.

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) for maintaining the dentition in adults treated for periodontitis

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.

The comparison of two professional prophylaxis systems in plaque removal and debonding of orthodontic brackets

Introduction:

During orthodontic treatment, patients are expected to undergo consistent periodic prophylaxis as a result of complexities in oral hygiene. The aim of this study was to investigate, analyze, and compare the effectiveness of two professional prophylaxis systems of rubber cup polishing (RCP) and air-powder polishing (APP) in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment based on different levels of plaque and pigment on teeth and the extent of attachment of brackets after prophylaxis.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 50 patients were selected for this clinical trial study. A couple of months after the orthodontic treatment, the patients were placed on professional prophylaxis in terms of the plaque index. Randomized cross-arch prophylaxis (right maxilla with left mandible), RCP (left maxilla with right mandible), and APP were carried out on the patients. The main indexes in the study (number of plaque removal and debonding), the work time duration per second, and convenience of patients using visual analog scale in each of the methods were evaluated as minor factors. Data were recorded in a special checklist.

Results:

The mean of the plaque index and the time spent on RCP were observed to be higher than APP. The average satisfaction rate of patients with RCP was higher than APP. The debonding of the bracket and the tooth was not observed in any of the methods.

Conclusion:

APP is more efficient than RCP for performing professional prophylaxis of orthodontic patients.