Effectiveness of high speed instrument and air abrasion on different dental substrates

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of high speed (HS) and air abrasion (AA) instruments on groups of teeth (deciduous, permanent, bovine), in terms of preparation time, topography and presence of smear layer. Each group consisted of 5 teeth that had their buccal/lingual surfaces prepared by using either HS or AA. All procedures were standardized and timed. The teeth were then sectioned and prepared for evaluation of both the topography and the presence of smear layer by scanning electron microscopy. As regards preparation time, HS yielded preparations 1.5 times quicker than AA did on the three types of dental substrates (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.05). In both techniques (KruskalWallis Test, p < 0.05) the preparation time was influenced by the dental substrate, particularly in deciduous teeth (Mann-Whitney test with Bonferoni's correction, p < 0.017), which required a longer preparation time.In the descriptive analysis of the topography, no difference was found between the substrates. Nonetheless, the different instruments used determined distinctive topographies. Both techniques produced a smear layer (χ 2 McNemar, p > 0.05) in all substrates, but with different formations. In conclusion, the HS instrument was found to be more rapid than the AA. No difference was found between the three dental substrates as regards both the topography and the presence of smear layer. The differences found in the present study were only in relation to the effects of each instrument used.

A comparative evaluation of dentinal hypersensitivity and microleakage associated with composite restorations in cavities preconditioned with air abrasion - An ex vivo study

“…Also, under SEM, it was seen that margin of composite against dentin was not gap free where air abrasion was not used; however, this cannot be concluded from this study with conviction because of the insufficient sample size. It is also said that round margins obtained due to air abrasion help in reducing polymerization stress and marginal microleakage,[28] however, extrapolation of these findings into results of this study cannot be validated with conviction since the initial cavity preparation was done using rotary burs in the present study.…”

“…[28] It has been observed that preparations with air abrasions do not present precise and clearly identifiable outlines. [29] Thus, in the present study, an attempt was made to combine the advantages of both high speed cutting and air abrasion.…”

Class III Restoration of Anterior Primary Teeth: In Vitro Retention Comparison of Conventional, Modified and Air-abrasion Treated Preparations

“…The diamond burs were replaced every five cavity preparations and the air abrasion instrument was cleaned after any two applications. 14 …”

“…Then, One-Step Plus adhesive system (Single Bond, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) was applied by two consecutive coats, with a clean microbrush (Microbrush Co., Greyton, USA) and gently blot-dried for 5 seconds to evaporate the solvent and was polymerized for 20 seconds using a visible light-curing unit (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) with an output of 400 mW/cm2. 13,14 …”

Removal of Enamel Caries with an Air Abrasion Powder

“…Blasting the tooth causes a removal of small amounts of tooth structure, producing a cavity with irregular contours, which is compatible with adhesive restorations. 11 The main drawback of this technique is the potentially hazardous powder cloud, especially from alumina, generated during patient treatment. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that there is not enough dust produced to create a health hazard for the patient or the practitioner.…”