Dentistry, College of

 

Date of this Version

11-1991

Citation

Journal of Dental Hygiene (November-December 1991) 65(9): 441-444.

Comments

Copyright 1991, American Dental Hygienists Association. Used by permission.

Abstract

A wide variety of disposable infection control products is being marketed including disposable prophylaxis angles. It was the purpose of this in vivo investigation to evaluate the clinical efficacy of five different brands of commercially available disposable prophylaxis angles. Utilizing a splitmouth design. 11 dental hygienists evaluated disposable prophylaxis angles while completing a routine oral prophylaxis. Fifty samples each of Brahler. Ash/Dentsply, Denticator. and Young Dental angles were compared to a control angle (Teledyne Getz). A questionnaire was completed by each operator following patient treatment (a total of 161 patients was treated). The questionnaire asked questions in which the four brands were compared to the Teledyne Getz disposable prophylaxis angle. followed by questions regarding individual performance characteristics of each brand of disposable prophylaxis angle. The comparative questions were analyzed utilizing a two-tailed z-test. and the individual performance characteristic questions were analyzed with a confidence interval. The results revealed that when the four brands of disposable prophylaxis angles were compared to the Teledyne Getz brand. the Teledyne Getz disposable prophylaxis angle performed better than the Brahler, Ash/Dentsply. and Denticator brands. However. the Young Dental disposable prophylaxis angle performed better than the Teledyne Getz brand. The results of the evaluation of the independent performance characteristics revealed that the Young Dental disposable prophylaxis angle performed more reliably than the other brands. while the Teledyne Getz disposable prophylaxis angle produced significantly less vibration than all of the other brands of disposable prophylaxis angles.