ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
The working angle in low-abrasive air polishing has an influence on gingival damage-an ex vivo porcine model.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guided biofilm therapy versus conventional protocol-clinical outcomes in non-surgical periodontal therapy.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Antimicrobial Efficacy and Soft-Tissue Safety of Air-Polishing Powders in Periodontal Therapy: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Gingival Margin Damage During Supragingival Dental Polishing by Inexperienced Operator-Pilot Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the influence of instrumentation angle during low-abrasive air polishing (LAA) on the oral gingiva using an ex vivo porcine model. MATERIAL AND
methodsSix tissue samples from each of 14 porcine mandibles were randomly selected and instrumented. Two different LAA powders (glycine 25 μm, tagatose 15 μm) were investigated. An application angle of either 30-60° or 90° was selected. Gingival specimens from different mandibles served as untreated references. Gingival biopsies were examined by scanning electron microscopy and paraffin histology for tissue destruction using a five-level scale.
resultsLAA caused significantly less tissue damage at a 90° angle than at a 30-60° angle. This effect was seen in both the glycine-based powder arms (p = 0.002, p = 0.046) and the tagatose-based powder arms (p = 0.003, p = 0.011). However, at identical working angles, the two powders did not show significant differences in terms of gingival erosion (p = 0.79 and p = 0.57; p = 0.91 and p = 0.78, respectively).
conclusionsLAA may cause less tissue damage at an application angle of 90°. Consequently, it seems advisable to air-polish the soft tissue as perpendicularly as possible. Additionally, glycine and tagatose LAA powders do not seem to differ in concern of soft tissue damage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this ex vivo animal model, this study argues for an application that is as close as possible to the 90° angle intending to minimize soft tissue damage. Manufacturer specifications, however, mainly request applications deviating from the right angle. In order to work in interdental areas using LAA safely, the use of subgingival nozzles might be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.