Comparison of the effect of sodium bicarbonate and glycine air polishing systems on tooth surface roughness: An atomic force microscopic analysis

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Tamilselvi, S.^a | Nagate, Raghavendra Reddy^b | Al-Ahmari, Manae Musa Musleh^b | Kokila, G.^a | Tikare, Shreyas^b | Chaturvedi, Saurabh^{c; *}

Affiliations: [a] Department of Periodontics, K.S.R. Institute of Dental Science and Research, Tamil Nadu, India | [b] Department of Periodontics and Community Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia | [c] Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Saurabh Chaturvedi, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia. Tel.: +966 580697248; E-mail: survedi@kku.edu.sa.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: A variety of prophylactic materials are used in the dental office for the removal of stains and calculus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate tooth surface changes caused by the application of air abrasive powders (sodium bicarbonate, SBAP and glycine air powder, GPAP) along with scaling and root planing (SRP), under atomic force microscope (AFM) and to analyze the histological soft tissue changes caused by these agents, using light microscopy. METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases: in vitro and in vivo. In the in vitro phase, hard tissue analysis was done under AFM following air powder polishing. Eighteen extracted teeth were chosen. SRP and tooth sectioning were carried out. Subsequently, each section of the tooth was mounted on a glass plate with self-cure acrylic resin and air polished using SBAP and GPAP. In the vivo phase, the soft tissue was analyzed under a light microscope for surface roughness. A biopsy specimen was taken from patients who had received phase I therapy, and flap surgery was planned using a modified Widman flap technique. RESULTS: This study compared surface changes in enamel and cementum, under AFM, as indicated by RA after SRP, SRP and SBAP, and SRP and GPAP; comparisons were then drawn across the three groups. The mean AFM values were 108.5 and 144.7, 102.7 and 81.7, and 95.6 and 7.4, at the crown and root, for SRP, SRP and SBAP, and SRP and GPAP interventions, respectively. GPAP was the least rough on soft tissues. CONCLUSION: SBAP and GPAP were better than hand instrumentation as indicated by AFM and histological section analysis.

Keywords: Periodontics, dentistry, tooth surface, atomic force microscope (AFM)

DOI: 10.3233/THC-202210

Journal: Technology and Health Care, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 489-498, 2021