Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 11, 2026
Oral Biofilm Analysis of Palatal Expanders by Fluorescence In-Situ Hybridization and Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy
Published on: October 20, 2011
Influence of air-polishing devices and abrasives on root dentin-an in vitro confocal laser scanning microscope study
Matthias Pelka1, Sandra Trautmann, Anselm Petschelt
1University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Dental Clinic 1 - Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Germany. pelka@dent.uni-erlangen.de
Objective:
To assess the influence of air-polishing devices and various abrasives on flat root surfaces.
Method And Materials:
A total of 168 natural teeth were embedded in polyurethane resin and treated with airborne-particle abrasion using two air-polishing devices (Prophyflex 3, KaVo; EMS Handy, EMS), four abrasives (Airflow powder, EMS; Cleaning powder, KaVo; ClinPro powder, 3M ESPE; and ProphyPearls, KaVo), and three treatment times (5, 10, and 20 seconds). Defects were quantified using a confocal laser scanning microscope.
Results:
The Prophyflex device clearly generated deeper substance defects compared to the EMS device, regardless of abrasive used (Kruskal-Wallis, P = .004). ProphyPearls abrasive caused the deepest defects with both devices. ClinPro powder produced the least amount of defects. Defect depths increased significantly for all abrasives with increasing treatment times (Kruskal-Wallis, P = .01), and all abrasives except ClinPro powder caused substantial volume loss.
Conclusion:
The abrasiveness of air-polishing powders differs depending on the polishing device used. ProphyPearls caused more substance loss than ClinPro powder.
