Efficiency of two different polishing methods On Enamel: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Abstract

Objective:The present clinic al study aim edtocompareth effect softwo polishingmethodairpolisherandrubbercuponthe tooth enamel surface.

Materials and Methods:

Thirtyanteriorteeth(maxillaryandmandibular)under wentultrasonicscalingandrootplaning,were cleanedwithdistilledwater,andstoredin10%formalin.Teethweremountedonacrylicblocks,exposingonlythecrownwith a flattened lingual surface. Control samples remained unpolished,while test samples were polishedusingeither air polishing orrubbercupmethods.Teethweresectionedmesiodistallyintoenamelslabsusingalow-speed(2500–3000rpm)water-cooled diamonddisc.Specimenswereair-dried,gold-sputtered,andexaminedunderascanningelectronmicroscope(SEM)at1000x magnification (20.0 kV, 25 mA). Enamel surface conditions were scored based on SEM photomicrographs.

Results: A statistically significant difference in enamel surface scores was found between the rubber cup and air polisher groups (Chi-square = 7.200, p = 0.007). Rubber cup polishing resulted in smoother enamel surfaces with significantly less debris compared to air polishing and scaling alone.

Conclusion:Rubbercuppolishingproducesasmootherenamelsurfacewithreduceddebriscomparedtoairpolishing,making it more effective for enamel finishing after scaling.

Clinical Relevance: Air polishing offers advantages like reduced operator and patient fatigue, shorter procedure time, and betterplaqueremovalin hard-to-reachareas(e.g., furcation’s,flutings,androotproximities) comparedtorotaryinstruments.