Dentistry, College of

 

Date of this Version

11-1991

Citation

Journal of Dental Hygiene (November-December 1991) 65(9): 438-440.

Comments

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

Abstract

Although a number of manufacturers are marketing disposable prophylaxis angles, no literature exists regarding the mechanical efficacy and efficiency of these products. It was the purpose of this in vitro evaluation to compare and evaluate five brands of commercially available disposable prophylaxis angles for vibration, noise, heat rise, and torque. Random samples of each brand of disposable prophylaxis angle were utilized. Vibration was measured with a height gauge and running motor; noise was measured with a sound meter and heat rise was measured from 68°F on the head and body of the disposable prophylaxis angles, and torque required to destroy the gear was measured with a torque gauge. Means, standards deviations, standard errors, and coefficients of variation were computed for each of the variables tested. Results revealed that four of the brands tested (in alphabetical order) perform reliably when considering vibration, noise, heat rise, and torque: Denticator, Teledyne Getz, and Young Dental. The Ash/Dentsply had significant heat rise in the head and body. Both the Ash/Dentsply and Brahler disposable prophylaxis angles demonstrated significant vibration.