We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Evidence-Based Practice for the Dental Hygienist
Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Int J Evidence-Based Practice Dent Hygienist 2 (2016), No. 3     13. Sep. 2016
Int J Evidence-Based Practice Dent Hygienist 2 (2016), No. 3  (13.09.2016)

Page 182-185

Air Polishing Is More Effective Than Manual Treatment for Peri-implant Tissue Maintenance
Alqutaibi, Ahmed Yaseen
Background: This article critically appraises a randomized controlled trial that was conducted in 2016 to evaluate the efficacy of air polishing in peri-implant tissue maintenance compared with manual treatment.
Clinical question: In patients with implant prostheses, what is the efficacy of air polishing in maintaining periimplant tissue health when compared with a manual technique?
Summary of methods and results: The study population consisted of 46 patients, 24 in the air polishing group and 22 in the manual treatment group. At the beginning of treatment (baseline) and on a monthly basis for the duration of the study (6 months), all patients were subjected to oral hygiene sessions with either air-abrasive debridement with amino acid (glycine) powder or manual debridement and chlorhexidine treatment. The clinical measurements were performed with a plastic periodontal probe with a standardized probing force of 0.2 N. At baseline and after 3 and 6 months, the following periodontal indices were evaluated and recorded: plaque index (PI), bleeding index (BOP), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and bleeding score (BS). No signs of inflammation were observed in eight patients (16 implants) in the air polishing group and no inflammation was observed in one patient (4 implants) in the manual treatment group. All subjects completed the study and no implants were lost.
Critical appraisal: This randomized controlled trial met most requirements of the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP).
Practical implications: Air-abrasive debridement with glycine powder provides adequate and more effective removal of peri-implant biofilm and has lower risk of adverse effects, such as the formation of emphysema or site infection, when compared with manual treatment.