Roughness of Human Enamel Surface Submitted to Different Prophylaxis Methods

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate alterations in the surface roughness and micromorphology of human enamel submitted to three prophylaxis methods. Sixty-nine caries-free molars with exposed labial surfaces were divided into three groups. Group I was treated with a rotary instrument set at a low speed, rubber cup and a mixture of water and pumice; group II with a rotary instrument set at a low speed, rubber cup and prophylaxis paste Herjos-F (Vigodent S/A Indústria e Comércio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); and group III with sodium bicarbonate spray Profi II Ceramic (Dabi Atlante Indústrias Médico Odontológicas Ltda, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil). All procedures were performed by the same operator for 10 s, and samples were rinsed and stored in distilled water. Pre and post-treatment surface evaluation was completed using a surface profilometer (Perthometer S8P, Marh, Perthen, Germany) in 54 samples. In addition, the other samples were coated with gold and examined in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The results of this study were statistically analyzed with the paired t-test (Student), the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Dunn (5%) test. The sodium bicarbonate spray led to significantly rougher surfaces than the pumice paste. The use of prophylaxis paste showed no statistically significant difference when compared with the other methods. Based on SEM analysis, the sodium bicarbonate spray presented an irregular surface with granular material and erosions. Based on this study, it can be concluded that there was an increased enamel surface roughness when teeth were treated with sodium bicarbonate spray when compared with teeth treated with pumice paste.

dental enamel; dental prophylaxis; jet abrasive system; enamel roughness; scanning electron microscope.

1. Primosch RE. Rubber cup prophylaxis: a reevaluation of its use in pedi-atric dental patients. Dent Hyg (Chig), 54: 525–7, 1980.

2. Nainar SMH and Redford-Badwal DA. Survey of dental prophylaxes rendered by pediatric dentists in New England. J Contemp Dent Pract, 5: 14–22, 2004.

3. Munley M, Everett M, Krupa C, Somerman M, Susuki J. Removal of extrinsic stain by air power polishing [abstract 356]. J Dent Res, 66: 151, 1987.

3. Ramaglia L, Sbordone L, Ciaglia RN, Barone A, Martina R. A clinical comparison of the efficacy and efficiency of two professional prophy-laxis procedures in orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod, 21: 423–8, 1999.

4. Willmann DE, Norling BK, Johnson WN. A new prophylaxis instru-ment: effect on enamel alterations. J Am Dent Assoc, 101: 923–5, 1980.

5. Le May O and Kaqueler JC. Étude au M.E.B. des effects in vitro d’un appareil prophylactique (Cavijet) sur les surfaces tissulaires et matéri-aux de restaurations dentaires. J Parodontol,. 4: 111–8, 1985.

6. Prando G, Garberoglio R, Castagnola L. La lucidatura della superfície dello esmalto com il Prophy-Jet. Riv Odontoiatr Amici Brugg, 1: 301–7, 1982.

6. Scotti R, Morabito A, Vergano V, Benech A. I nuovi mezzi di profilassi e levigatura. Minerva Stomatol, 34: 333–8, 1985.

7. Nanci A. Ten Cate’s Oral Histology: Development, Structure, and Func-tion. 6th ed. Saint Louis, Mosby, 145–91, 2003.

8. Giampaolo, ET, Machado AL, Pavarina AC, Vergani CE. Different methods of finishing and polishing enamel. J Prothet Dent, 89: 135–40, 2003.

9. Hosoya Y and Johnston JW. Evaluation of various cleaning and polish-ing methods on primary enamel. J Pedod, 13: 253–69, 1989.

10. Garcia-Godoy F and Medlock JW. An SEM study of the effects of air-polishing on fissures surfaces. Oper Dent, 19: 465–67, 1988.

11. Boyde A. Airpolishing effects on enamel, dentine, cement and bone. Br Dent J, 156: 287–91, 1984.

12. Roulet JF and Roulet-Mehrens TK. The surface roughness of restorative materials and dental tissues after polishing with prophylaxis and pol-ishing pastes. J Periodontol, 53: 257–66, 1982.

13. Gerbo LR, Lacefield WR, Barnes CM, Russell CM. Enamel roughness after air-powder polishing. Am J Dent, 6: 96–8, 1993.

14. Salami D and Luz MAAC. Effect of prophylactic treatments on the superficial roughness of dental tissues and of two esthetic restorative materials. Pesqui Odontol Bras, 17: 63–8, 2003.

15. Newman PS, Silverwood RA, Dolby AE. The effects of airbrasive instrument on dental hard tissues, skin and oral mucosa. Br Dent J, 159: 9–12, 1985.

16. Seynhaeve T, Velde FV, Boever J. Evaluation au microscope electron-ique à balayage de I’utilisation de I’Air-Flow. Rev Belg Méd Dent, 41: 15–8, 1986.

17. Putt MS, Kleber CJ, Davis JA, Schimmele RG, Muhler JC. Physical characteristics of a new cleaning and polishing agent for use in a pro-phylaxips paste. J Dent Res, 54: 527–34, 1975.

18. Lutz F, Sener B, Imfeld T, Barbakow F, Schupbach P. Comparison of the efficacy of prophylaxis pastes with conventional abrasives or a new self-adjusting abrasive. Quintessence Int, 24: 193–201, 1993.

19. Lutz F and Imfeld T. Advances in abrasive technology - prophylaxis pastes. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 23: 61–4,66,68, 2002.

20. Kontturi-Närhi V, Markkanen S, Markkanen H. Effects of airpolishing on dental plaque removal and hard tissue as evaluated by scanning elec-tron microscopy. J Periodontol, 61: 334–8, 1990.

21. Jost-Brinkmann PG. The influence of air polishers on tooth enamel. J Orofac Orthop, 59: 1–16, 1998.

22. Kuliralo M and Dourov, N. Altérations du microrelief de surface et perte de I’émail dentaire après utilisation d’um spray abrasif au bicarbonate de sodium. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol, 33: 77–82, 1990.