A Clinical Comparison of the Effect on the Gingiva of the Prophy‐Jet and the Rubber Cup and Paste Techniques

Abstract

This clinical trial compared the effect on the gingiva of the Prophy-Jet and the rubber cup and paste techniques of stain and supragingival plaque removal. Twenty-one human subjects with healthy gingiva or slight gingivitis participated. A split mouth design was used. The Prophy-Jet caused a statistically significant increase (P less than 0.05) in gingival irritation immediately posttreatment, but the differences were not deemed clinically significant. There were no statistically significant (P less than 0.05) or clinically significant differences in the effect on the gingiva between the two techniques at 7 and 21 days posttreatment. There was no lasting difference in gingival trauma between the two methods of stain and supragingival plaque removal in subjects with healthy gingiva or slight gingivitis.

Effect of air‐polishing devices on the gingiva: histologic study in the Canine

“…The effect of the APD jet on gingival mucosa has been reported in a few studies based on clinical observations in humans (Weaks et al 1984, Newman et al 1985, Mishkin et al 1986), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) examination of positive replica prepared from gingiva impressions following air polishing (Kontturi-Närhi et al 1989) and microscopic examination in rabbit mucosa (Newman et al 1985). The effect of the APD jet on gingival mucosa has been reported in a few studies based on clinical observations in humans (Weaks et al 1984, Newman et al 1985, Mishkin et al 1986), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) examination of positive replica prepared from gingiva impressions following air polishing (Kontturi-Närhi et al 1989) and microscopic examination in rabbit mucosa (Newman et al 1985).…”

“…Clinical studies have shown that APD induces localized trauma to the gingiva that heals within 6 days (Weaks et al 1984, Mishkin et al 1986). SEM of replica prepared from impressions taken from gingiva following teeth cleaning with APD revealed gingival erosive changes with severity, positively correlated with the presence of gingival inflammation before instrumentation (Kontturi-Närhi et al 1989).…”

Powder emission rates of four air polishing devices

“…An abundance of research has dealt with the effects of APDs on dental hard tissues (Atkinson et al 1984, Boyde 1984, de Boever & Van de Velde 1985, Berkstein et al 1987, Galloway & Pashley 1987, Bester et al 1995, Horning et al 1987, Jost-Brinkmann 1998, restorative materials , Gorfil et al 1989, Eliades et al 1991, Gutman et al 1993) and the surrounding soft tissue (Newman et al 1985, Mishkin et al 1986, Hunter et al 1989, Kontturi-Närhi et al 1989. An abundance of research has dealt with the effects of APDs on dental hard tissues (Atkinson et al 1984, Boyde 1984, de Boever & Van de Velde 1985, Berkstein et al 1987, Galloway & Pashley 1987, Bester et al 1995, Horning et al 1987, Jost-Brinkmann 1998, restorative materials , Gorfil et al 1989, Eliades et al 1991, Gutman et al 1993) and the surrounding soft tissue (Newman et al 1985, Mishkin et al 1986, Hunter et al 1989, Kontturi-Närhi et al 1989.…”

Estudo 'in situ' do efeito remineralizador da saliva e do flúor após profilaxia com jato de bicarbonato de sódio sobre o esmalte hígido

“…A principal desvantagem do uso do jato de bicarbonato de sódio é a ocorrência de trauma na gengiva devido a remoção de biofilme dentário na região cervical dos dentes 1,126 . Contudo, estudos demonstraram que a irritação é apenas imediata, não sendo mais detectada após alguns dias 55,75,94,126 .…”

“…A partir da etiologia da doença periodontal e principalmente da cárie dentária, diversos autores relataram a importância do controle mecânico do biofilme dentário como medida preventiva efetiva 13,14,15,16,21,63 , destacando-se o controle profissional por meio do jato de bicarbonato de sódio 78,81,82,94,108,120,126 .…”