File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Powder emission rates of four air polishing devices=

TitlePowder emission rates of four air polishing devices=
Authors
KeywordsRoot substance removal
Powder emission
Air polishing device
Issue Date2002
Citation
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2002, v. 29, n. 8, p. 694-698 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: Although highly effective in plaque and stain removal, the use of air polishing devices (APDs) on denuded root surfaces may lead to clinically relevant loss of tooth substance. As the amount of powder emitted by an APD may have a significant impact on the safety and efficacy of the instruments, the purpose of the study was to quantify the amount of powder emitted by APDs depending on their powder filling status and powder setting. Methods: Four different APDs were filled to maximum level and the cumulative amount of powder emitted, depending on instrument settings and filling status, was quantified during 15 subsequent 120-s periods of use. Differences in powder emission were analyzed using ANOVA repeated measures. Results: Exact powder dosage was possible in one APD only (Dentsply Prophyjet®) where emission rates also remained constant over the first five periods assessed. In the three other APDs assessed (EMS Air-Flow®, Satellec Air-Max®, KaVo Prophyflex II®) powder emission depended on the amount of powder present in the powder chamber and declined with ongoing use. Changes in powder setting had a significant impact on powder emission in all APDs assessed, apart from the KaVo Prophyflex II® unit. Conclusions: Powder emission of APDs may vary greatly depending on the amount of powder present in the powder bowl. Therefore, instrument powder setting may not be a reliable parameter for safety and efficacy adjustments. This should be considered in clinical applications as well as in future research. © Blackwell Munksgaard, 2002.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/199921
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.915
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.848
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPetersilka, Gregor J.-
dc.contributor.authorSchenck, Ulf-
dc.contributor.authorFlemmig, Thomas Frank-
dc.date.accessioned2014-07-26T23:10:55Z-
dc.date.available2014-07-26T23:10:55Z-
dc.date.issued2002-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2002, v. 29, n. 8, p. 694-698-
dc.identifier.issn0303-6979-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/199921-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Although highly effective in plaque and stain removal, the use of air polishing devices (APDs) on denuded root surfaces may lead to clinically relevant loss of tooth substance. As the amount of powder emitted by an APD may have a significant impact on the safety and efficacy of the instruments, the purpose of the study was to quantify the amount of powder emitted by APDs depending on their powder filling status and powder setting. Methods: Four different APDs were filled to maximum level and the cumulative amount of powder emitted, depending on instrument settings and filling status, was quantified during 15 subsequent 120-s periods of use. Differences in powder emission were analyzed using ANOVA repeated measures. Results: Exact powder dosage was possible in one APD only (Dentsply Prophyjet®) where emission rates also remained constant over the first five periods assessed. In the three other APDs assessed (EMS Air-Flow®, Satellec Air-Max®, KaVo Prophyflex II®) powder emission depended on the amount of powder present in the powder chamber and declined with ongoing use. Changes in powder setting had a significant impact on powder emission in all APDs assessed, apart from the KaVo Prophyflex II® unit. Conclusions: Powder emission of APDs may vary greatly depending on the amount of powder present in the powder bowl. Therefore, instrument powder setting may not be a reliable parameter for safety and efficacy adjustments. This should be considered in clinical applications as well as in future research. © Blackwell Munksgaard, 2002.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Periodontology-
dc.subjectRoot substance removal-
dc.subjectPowder emission-
dc.subjectAir polishing device-
dc.titlePowder emission rates of four air polishing devices=-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1034/j.1600-051X.2002.290805.x-
dc.identifier.pmid12390565-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0036676383-
dc.identifier.volume29-
dc.identifier.issue8-
dc.identifier.spage694-
dc.identifier.epage698-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000178791100005-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats