Literature Reviewed
This page lists the peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses Preventio Hub indexed during article preparation. Each entry reports study type, sample size, key findings, and — where disclosed — funding and conflict-of-interest information. Entries that reached null results, that were industry-funded, or that run against the dominant clinical narrative are flagged as such.
This index is a working document. Papers are added as they are reviewed; entries are corrected when errors are found. Only studies with complete citation metadata are published here.
- Studies indexed with full citation metadata: 24
- Randomized controlled trials: 9
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 6
- In vitro / experimental studies: 8
- Case-control or retrospective: 1
- Studies with disclosed industry funding: 1 (Donnet et al., 2021 — EMS-funded)
- Studies with null or non-significant results flagged: 4
Randomized controlled trials
Fu et al., 2021 — Air polishing vs. rubber cup with and without disclosure
Key finding: Air polishing combined with disclosure produced the lowest plaque scores (21.7±17.5% vs. 33.5–34.5%, p<0.001). Air polishing was faster than rubber-cup prophylaxis (325 s vs. 407 s, p<0.001) and produced better patient satisfaction.
Funding / equipment: Used EMS Airflow Master. No commercial sponsorship disclosed in abstract.
Mensi et al., 2021 — Subgingival erythritol air polishing in stage III–IV periodontitis
Key finding: Number of bleeding closed pockets (NBCP) was comparable between groups (47.9% vs. 44.7%, p>0.05). The additional use of subgingival air polishing with erythritol did not produce a clinically significant advantage over scaling and root planing alone. Deeper pockets were a negative prognostic factor.null result
Editorial note: This is an honest null result for subgingival erythritol as an adjunct; the full text explicitly states that ultrasonic root surface debridement alone remains the reference treatment.
Mensi et al., 2021 (Part II) — Microbiome effects
Key finding: Microbiome shifts and bacterial diversity changes were documented across treatment modalities. Responses varied by modality.
Zhang et al., 2021 — Timing of glycine air polishing relative to SRP
Key finding: All groups improved clinically. Blood microbiota bacterial load was lowest when glycine air polishing was performed before SRP. Microbiota diversity varied by treatment order.
Menini et al., 2021 — Air polishing of implant-supported full-arch prostheses
Key finding: Glycine air polishing was effective without prosthesis removal; patient satisfaction was reported.
Papaioannou / Hentenaer et al., 2021 — Erythritol vs. ultrasonic for peri-implantitis
Key finding: No significant difference in mean bleeding on probing between erythritol air polishing and ultrasonic therapy at 3 months (p=0.380). Secondary outcomes (suppuration on probing, plaque index, probing depth, marginal bone level, full-mouth plaque score) showed no significant between-group differences. Pain/discomfort was low in both groups.null result
Editorial note: Erythritol air polishing was non-inferior, not superior, to ultrasonic therapy in this trial.
Ulvik et al., 2021 — Ultrasonic debridement of mandibular furcations
Key finding: Ultrasonic debridement showed superior efficacy in furcation-area treatment for some endpoints; other outcomes were not significantly different. Sustained benefits in supportive therapy were reported.
Koyuncuoglu et al., 2021 — PEEK ultrasonic tips for cement remnants around implants
Key finding: PEEK ultrasonic tips were effective in removing residual cement at different abutment–crown connection levels, with cleaning efficacy comparable to plastic curettes. Abutment margin location significantly affected cement retention.
Caveats: Laboratory model only (acrylic); not a clinical trial.
Multi-centre Swedish RCT, 2022 — GPIC with AIRFLOW vs. CNST
Key finding: No significant differences in clinical outcomes (bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth) between guided piezo-instrument cleaning with AIRFLOW and conventional non-surgical scaling and root planing. Treatment-related costs were significantly lower for the GPIC protocol (reduced chair time and fewer sessions). Smoking and age predicted treatment response.null result (clinical)
Funding: Public Dental Service, Region Västra Götaland (Sweden). Editorial note: Clinical outcomes were equivalent; economic advantage does not establish clinical superiority.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Nascimento et al., 2021 — Air polishing for supra- and subgingival biofilm
Key finding: Air polishing was reported effective for residual pocket inflammation; advantages in supportive care were documented.
Onisor et al., 2022 — Erythritol air polishing in non-surgical periodontal therapy
Key finding: Erythritol air polishing was reported clinically effective with consistent benefits across included RCTs and good patient acceptance.
Almatrooshi et al., 2023 — AIRFLOW for initial non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis
Key finding: Meta-analysis showed a favorable but not statistically significant trend for AIRFLOW in probing pocket depth reduction at 1–3 months (MD −0.23; 95% CI −0.50 to 0.05; p=0.10) and at 6 months (MD −0.04; 95% CI −0.34 to 0.27; p=0.80). Only 5 of 316 screened studies met inclusion criteria.non-significant
Editorial note: The evidence base for AIRFLOW as a superior peri-implantitis treatment is small and not statistically significant.
Hatz et al., 2022 — Umbrella review on low-abrasive air powder water jet technology
Key finding: Favorable findings for efficacy of air powder water jet technology in both periodontitis and peri-implantitis treatment, across clinical, microbiological, and patient-centered outcomes.
Caveats: Umbrella reviews inherit heterogeneity from included reviews; no independent quantitative synthesis.
In vitro and experimental studies
Donnet et al., 2021 — Powder consumption of air-polishing devicesindustry-funded
Key finding: Powder stability varied by a factor of 2 across devices; mean consumption varied by a factor of 2.9. Handheld devices consumed approximately 25% more powder than tabletop units.
Funding / COI: Funded by EMS (Electro Medical Systems SA). This is disclosed transparently here and should be factored in when interpreting the findings.
Arefniaa et al., 2021 — Surface effects of air polishing, ultrasonic, and hand instruments
Key finding: Air polishing alone produced no enamel loss and ≤20 µm cementum loss. It was the most enamel-favorable technique tested and the only group with no significant change in cementum roughness (p=0.999).
Qian et al., 2021 — Decontamination of clinically failed TiUnite implants
Key finding: Varying cleaning efficacy across methods; surface roughness and chemistry changes were documented.
Reinhart et al., 2022 — Erythritol on restorative materials
Key finding: Material-specific surface changes with a favorable abrasiveness profile; erythritol was reported safe for the tested restorations.
Amate-Fernández et al., 2021 — Erythritol-chlorhexidine on implant biofilm regrowth
Key finding: Erythritol-chlorhexidine formulation significantly inhibited biofilm regrowth vs. mechanical treatment alone, with reductions across multiple bacterial species. Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans showed inconsistent response.
Fischer et al., 2023 — Air polishing on implants with different surface characteristics
Key finding: Cleaning efficacy varied by implant surface (machined, rough, coated). Surface integrity was preserved across tested systems.
Caveats: No live tissue; biofilm model simplified; long-term surface-damage potential not assessed.
Meethil et al., 2021 — Sources of SARS-CoV-2 in dental aerosols
Key finding: Multiple sources of SARS-CoV-2 identified in aerosols. Ultrasonic instrumentation generated the largest aerosol loads. Microbiota composition varied by procedure.
Koch-Heier et al., 2021 — Mouth rinses and SARS-CoV-2 inactivation
Key finding: ViruProX (0.05% CPC, 1.5% H2O2) and BacterX pro (0.1% CHX, 0.05% CPC, 0.005% F−) inactivated SARS-CoV-2 in vitro; a 30–60 s rinse may reduce viral load.
Case-control and population studies
Marouf et al., 2021 — Periodontitis and COVID-19 severity
Key finding: Periodontitis was associated with higher risk of death (OR 8.81), ICU admission (OR 3.54), and need for ventilation (OR 4.57). Elevated inflammatory markers accompanied periodontitis.
Funding / COI: None disclosed.
Indexed but not yet fully extracted
The following documents are present in the editorial working set but have not yet been fully extracted to the standard required for publication on this index. They will be added — or explicitly removed — once author names, journal, sample size, and verified findings are confirmed.
- De Waal et al., 2021 — Biofilm regrowth on implants (author initials verification pending)
- Green propolis in vitro antimicrobial study (2022) — authors not yet extracted
- In vitro implant decontamination by defect configuration (Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2022) — authors pending
- Glycine vs. erythritol-chlorhexidine on human gingival fibroblasts (Annals of Anatomy, 2022) — authors pending
- Minimally invasive erythritol non-surgical periodontal RCT (Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2023) — authors pending
- In vitro periodontal air-polishing system comparison (Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2023) — authors pending
- Air-polishing supportive periodontal therapy systematic review (International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 2021) — authors pending
Last updated: April 16, 2026