HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 136, No 8, 1101-1105. © 2005 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by KENYON, B. J. Articles by LOUIE, K. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by KENYON, B. J. Articles by LOUIE, K. G. Related Collections Dental Equipment/Instruments

JADA Continuing Education

Background. The high-speed high-torque (electric motor) hand-piece is becoming more popular in dental offices and laboratories in the United States. It is reported to cut more precisely and to assist in the creation of finer margins that enhance cavity preparations. The authors conducted an in vitro study to compare the quality of cavity preparations fabricated with a high-speed high-torque (electric motor) handpiece and a high-speed low-torque (air turbine) handpiece.

Methods. Eighty-six dental students each cut two Class I preparations, one with an air turbine handpiece and the other with an electric motor high-speed handpiece. The authors asked the students to cut each preparation accurately to a circular outline and to establish a flat pulpal floor with 1.5 millimeters’ depth, 90-degree exit angles, parallel vertical walls and sharp internal line angles, as well as to refine the preparation to achieve flat, smooth walls with a well-defined cavosurface margin. A single faculty member scored the preparations for criteria and refinement using a nine-point scale (range, 1–9). The authors analyzed the data statistically using paired t tests.

Results. In preparation criteria, the electric motor high-speed handpiece had a higher average grade than did the air turbine handpiece (5.07 and 4.90, respectively). For refinement, the average grade for the air turbine high-speed handpiece was greater than that for the electric motor high-speed handpiece (5.72 and 5.52, respectively). The differences were not statistically significant.

Clinical Implications. The electric motor high-speed handpiece performed as well as, but not better than, the air turbine handpiece in the fabrication of high-quality cavity preparations.

Key Words: Cavity preparation; electric motor handpiece; air turbine handpiece

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. M. Weaver ORAL IMPLANTS J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2005; 136(11): 1512 - 1512. [Full Text] [PDF]