The A-dec EA-50LT electric handpiece system is designed for integration with the A-dec 500 series delivery unit. The system consists of a control module, micromotor/cord, and a variety of Synea attachments, manufactured by W&H in Austria. A-dec states the system is compatable with KaVo, Sirona, and Bien-Air attachments. The EA-50LT electric handpiece can occupy any one of the four handpiece positions on the bracket head, alongside a choice of high-speed air turbine or low-speed air motor handpieces. The brushless, autoclavable EA-50LT micromotor weighs 79 gms, measures 47 mm, and has a speed range of 300 – 40,000 RPM. With various interchangeable attachments, bur-speeds in the range of 3 to 200,000 RPM can be reached. The system uses glass-rod fiberoptics and Synea attachments can be purchased with or without fiberoptics. All contra-angles have push-button chucks, 3-port water spray, and are available in gear ratios of 1:5, 1:1, 1.5:1, 2:1, 10:1, and 128:1. The straight attachment is 1:1. A-dec states the system delivers 62 watts of power and 3 Newton/cm torque. Its electrical requirements are 24 VAC/ 60 Hz.
The A-dec EA-50LT electric handpiece can be conveniently mounted on the bracket-head of the A-dec 500 series delivery system, alongside air-turbine high-speed and air motor low-speed handpieces. Three contra-angles (gear ratios of 1:5, 1:1, and 2:1) were evaluated with the system. Evaluators found the fiberoptics to be excellent and appreciated the reduced noise and vibration levels, compared to air-turbines. The power, torque, and cutting ability all were adequate, though most evaluators preferred to use the air-turbines. The system proved reliable throughout the project and there were no observed deleterious effects due to autoclaving the micromotor and attachments. The attachments were competitively priced.
Much of the evaluators’ critical feedback was directed at electric handpieces in general, ratehr than the EA-50LT specifically. Most evaluators felt the micromotor/handpiece combination was bulky and some felt the interchangeable attachments and programming requirements were cumbersome. There was a steep learning curve for evaluators who were not familiar with electric handpieces. The handpiece was larger and heavier than typical air-turbines and some felt it inhibited visibility and access. The swivel ability of the handpiece was also limited. Although the attachments were competitively priced, the unit was more expensive than air-turbines. Most evaluators felt the electric handpiece could augment but not replace air-turbine handpieces.
This review has been adapted from the DECS website. The DECS has no formal association with Dentalcompare or with vendors listed on dentalcompare.com. The DECS does not specifically endorse any particular product or vendor and is provided for informational purposes only.
