Last reviewed: October 20, 2026 · DentalAirPolisher Editorial Team
A practical framework for clinics: decide the device type first, then powders, total cost, service and training. No brand wins on every count.
Choose in this order: (1) device type — handpiece, tabletop air polisher or combined tabletop system; (2) powders and indications — do you need subgingival and implant work, and therefore glycine or erythritol?; (3) total cost — capital, powders, wear parts and service; (4) service and training in your country.
The clinical evidence finds air polishing comparable to conventional instrumentation, with comfort and time advantages. The decision is mostly about workflow and practicalities, not about one device producing better outcomes.
Background first: what a dental air polisher is. For a worked example of a combined tabletop system, see the EMS AIRFLOW Prophylaxis Master (specs and quote).
The Hu-Friedy PWR Pair is another combined tabletop unit: a piezo scaler and an air polisher with separate handpieces.
Details: erythritol vs glycine.
Service quality depends on the local distributor more than on the brand.
Some manufacturers attach a branded protocol: EMS's 8-step Guided Biofilm Therapy, and the labels MIT (NSK) and ABC (Woodpecker). Others, such as Acteon, Dentsply Sirona and Mectron, are used within conventional prophylaxis. In 2024 randomized trials, GBT achieved pocket closure comparable to conventional instrumentation, with shorter treatment time in one trial (Mensi et al., 2024; Graetz et al., 2024). A structured protocol can standardize appointments, but it has not been shown to produce better clinical outcomes.
A handpiece is the lowest-cost way to add air polishing to existing units. A combined tabletop system costs more but adds ultrasonic scaling, usually with subgingival options and its own water and powder management. Your case mix and number of chairs usually decide.
Not necessarily. Erythritol and glycine are both low-abrasive powders suitable for subgingival and implant use, and reviews have not shown erythritol to be clinically superior.
Current trials show outcomes comparable to conventional instrumentation, with shorter treatment time in one 2024 study. A protocol can help standardize appointments, but it is not proven to produce better clinical results.