Statement of problem
Dentistry is gravitating toward the increased use of electric handpieces. The dental
professional should have sufficient evidence to validate the switch from an air-turbine
handpiece to an electric handpiece. However, there is little research quantifying
the cutting efficiency of electric and air-turbine handpieces. Studies that do quantify
cutting efficiency typically do so with only a single material.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the cutting efficiency of an electric handpiece
and an air-turbine handpiece, using various materials commonly used in dentistry.
Material and methods
Seven materials: Macor (machinable glass ceramic), silver amalgam, aluminum oxide,
zirconium oxide, high noble metal alloy, noble metal alloy, and base metal alloy,
were each cut with a bur 220 times; 110 times with an electric handpiece, and 110
times with an air-turbine handpiece. The weight difference of the material was calculated
by subtracting the weight of the material after a cut from the weight of the material
before the cut. The cutting efficiency was calculated by dividing the weight difference
by the duration of the cut (g/s). Data were analyzed by a 2-way analysis of variance
followed by Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (α=.05).
Results
The electric handpiece cut more efficiently than the air-turbine handpiece (F=3098.9,
P<.001). In particular, the high noble metal alloy, silver amalgam, and Macor were
cut more efficiently with the electric handpiece (0.0383 ±0.0002 g/s, 0.0260 ±0.0002
g/s, and 0.0122 ±0.0002 g/s, respectively) than with the air-turbine handpiece (0.0125
±0.0002 g/s, 0.0142 ±0.0002 g/s, and 0.008 ±0.0002 g/s, respectively).
Conclusions
The electric handpiece is more efficient at cutting various materials used in dentistry,
especially machinable glass ceramic, silver amalgam, and high noble alloy, than the
air-turbine handpiece.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- McGrath KA Travers BE World of invention. 2nd ed. Thomson Gale, Detroit1998: 238-239
- History of dentistry.in: Hine M Phillips RW Review of dentistry. 7th ed. Mosby, St. Louis1979: 1-27
- The development of the dental drill.Compendium. 1988; 9: 518
- A comparison of the heat production and mechanical efficiency of diamond instruments, stones, and burs at 3,000 and 60,000 r.p.m.N Z Dent J. 1972; 68: 58-64
- The efficient use of carbide burs and diamond points for cavity preparation: part I.Dent Dig. 1949; 55: 442-448
- Methods for evaluation of rotating diamond-abrasive dental instruments.J Am Dent Assoc. 1957; 54: 637-644
- Assessing the cutting efficiency of dental diamond burs.J Am Dent Assoc. 1996; 127: 763-772
- Cutting efficiency in complete coverage preparation.J Am Dent Assoc. 1969; 79: 1160-1167
- The cutting effectiveness of carbide fissure burs on teeth.J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 43: 42-45
- Cutting effectiveness and wear of carbide burs on eight machinable ceramics and bovine dentin.Dent Mater. 1991; 7: 247-253
- Dental high-speed cutting of four cast alloys.J Oral Rehabil. 1993; 20: 653-661
- Comparison of sectioning rates among carbide and diamond burs using three casting alloys.J Prosthodont. 1999; 8: 240-244
- Cutting efficiency of air-turbine burs on cast titanium and dental casting alloys.Dent Mater. 2000; 16: 420-425
- Ceramic implant abutments: cutting efficiency and resultant surface finish by diamond rotary cutting instruments.J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 95: 444-449
- The grinding efficiency of diamond burs.J Prosthet Dent. 1979; 42: 422-428
- Assessment of a bur designed for the removal of metal restorations.Br Dent J. 1984; 156: 58-60
- A laboratory evaluation of two brands of disposable air turbine handpiece.Br Dent J. 1997; 182: 15-21
- Are electric handpieces an improvement?.J Am Dent Assoc. 2002; 133: 1433-1434
- Comparison of cavity preparation quality using an electric motor handpiece and an air turbine dental handpiece.J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136: 1101-1105
- Comparison of the cutting efficiencies of electric motor and air turbine dental handpieces.Gen Dent. 2001; 49: 199-204
- In vitro comparison of the cutting efficieny and temperature production of 10 different rotary cutting instruments. Part I: turbine.J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101: 248-261
- In vitro comparison of the cutting efficieny and temperature production of two different rotary cutting instruments. Part II: electric handpiece and comparison with turbine.J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101: 319-331
- Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Mosby, St. Louis2001: 567-591
Article info
Footnotes
Supported by the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics, Tylman Research Grant, July 2005.
Identification
Copyright
© 2010 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
