A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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

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

Odontology

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

Published: July 2017

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 (NaHCO 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 NaHCO 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 NaHCO 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0282-1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

air polishing
16
cementum clinically
8
90 s exposures
8
continual sweep
4
sweep motion
4
motion compare
4
air
4
compare air
4
polishing
4
polishing devices
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!