Please feel free to use our e-mail back service.
Comparison of different IPR techniques
Different techniques for performing IPR have been developed over time: they range from manual to mechanical, from rotating to oscillating.
|
|
By hand |
Mechanical, rotating with strips |
Mechanical, rotating with discs |
Mechanical, segmental oscillating discs, |
Ultrasonic, oscillating |
Mechanical, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drive |
No |
Yes, normal high-speed rotors |
Yes, normal straight or contra angle handpiece |
Yes, special contra angle handpiece |
Yes, special contra angle handpiece |
Yes, ultrasonic motor |
|
Damage to adjacent tooth |
No, due to one- or two-sided separating strips |
Yes, basically unavoidable even with steel strips |
No, due to one- or two-sided separating strips |
No, due to one- or two-sided discs with honeycomb design |
No, due to one- or two-sided separating strips |
No, due to one- or two-sided separating strip |
|
Danger of ledging |
Slight |
Yes, the thinner and longer the stripping device, the greater the danger |
Yes, due to large and unwieldy cutting protection |
Slight |
Slight |
Slight |
|
Roughness/ |
Very good |
Rough, limited due to minimum thickness of stripping device |
Fine |
Fine |
Fine |
Tends to be rough, limited due to minimum thickness of ultrasonic tip |
|
Contouring the abrasion surface |
Very good |
Very good, if there is danger of ledging and/or damage to adjacent tooth |
Slight |
Slight |
Very good |
Very good |
|
Speed of removal |
Tiresome |
Very high |
Very high |
High |
Very high |
Moderate |
|
Special aspects |
Very good possibility for contouring |
Cooling problems when long stripping devices are used |
Not recommended without cutting protection; however, it is difficult to obtain a cutting protection |
Patient has to open mouth wide and clinician has to be agile |
Very good possibility for contouring |
Patient has to open mouth wide and clinician has to be agile |
