Bo-Young Park1, Minjung Kim2, Junghyun Park2, Ju-Hui Jeong1, Hiejin Noh3. 1. Department of Dental Hygiene, The Graduate School, Yonsei University, Wonju, Republic of Korea. 2. Boa Dental Clinic, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Dental Hygiene, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Wonju, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to compare the plaque control effectiveness of rubber cup polishing with that of air polishing during oral prophylaxis procedures and to investigate the effect of the order of air-polishing application on the efficiency of oral prophylaxis. METHODS: The study included adult patients (≥20 years of age) who had visited the dental clinic for oral prophylaxis. A total of 173 subjects were divided into three groups (scaling followed by rubber cup polishing, SR; scaling followed by air polishing, SA; and air polishing followed by scaling, AS) based on sex, age, oral health status, oral hygiene status, and indications and contraindications according to the oral prophylaxis method. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the difference in oral prophylaxis time, residual deposits rate, subjects and dental hygienist satisfaction. RESULTS: The total scaling time was shorter in the AS group (15.4 ± 6.9 minutes) than in the SA (18.7 ± 5.5 minutes) and SR groups (19.9 ± 6.2 minutes) (p < 0.05). The rate of residual deposits was significantly higher in the SR group than in the AS or SA groups (p < 0.05). The satisfaction level of dental hygienists was higher in the AS group (8.8 ± 1.0 points) and the SA group (8.4 ± 1.0 points) than in the SR group (6.2 ± 1.3 points). CONCLUSION: During oral prophylaxis, dental plaque removal using air polishing requires a relatively longer time when compared to rubber cup polishing, but it can better eliminate dental plaque. In addition, we found that dental plaque removal using air polishing prior to scaling reduced the total scaling time.
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to compare the plaque control effectiveness of rubber cup polishing with that of air polishing during oral prophylaxis procedures and to investigate the effect of the order of air-polishing application on the efficiency of oral prophylaxis. METHODS: The study included adult patients (≥20 years of age) who had visited the dental clinic for oral prophylaxis. A total of 173 subjects were divided into three groups (scaling followed by rubber cup polishing, SR; scaling followed by air polishing, SA; and air polishing followed by scaling, AS) based on sex, age, oral health status, oral hygiene status, and indications and contraindications according to the oral prophylaxis method. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the difference in oral prophylaxis time, residual deposits rate, subjects and dental hygienist satisfaction. RESULTS: The total scaling time was shorter in the AS group (15.4 ± 6.9 minutes) than in the SA (18.7 ± 5.5 minutes) and SR groups (19.9 ± 6.2 minutes) (p < 0.05). The rate of residual deposits was significantly higher in the SR group than in the AS or SA groups (p < 0.05). The satisfaction level of dental hygienists was higher in the AS group (8.8 ± 1.0 points) and the SA group (8.4 ± 1.0 points) than in the SR group (6.2 ± 1.3 points). CONCLUSION: During oral prophylaxis, dental plaque removal using air polishing requires a relatively longer time when compared to rubber cup polishing, but it can better eliminate dental plaque. In addition, we found that dental plaque removal using air polishing prior to scaling reduced the total scaling time.