Objective: This systematic review analyzes existing literature on the clinical efficacy of air polishing devices (APDs), discussing the evidence-based data available for justifying their use as an alternative to conventional periodontal debridement in supportive periodontal therapy. The main objective of the review was to assess whether APD was as equally efficient or superior in obtaining successful treatment outcomes when compared with conventional methods. Data Sources: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search of articles in English, up to December 2016, was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline. Relevant articles were selected based on specific criteria. Seven studies were selected for the final assessment. One more study was added after a manual search of the literature. Due to considerable heterogeneity in study designs and outcome variables measured, only clinical parameters (probing depth, bleeding on probing, and clinical attachment level) were selected for meta-analysis. Conclusion: The studies selected for this systematic review provide some evidence that APDs as monotherapy could be an alternative to conventional debridement of single- and multi-rooted teeth with no furcation involvement, during supportive periodontal therapy. Comparing clinical and microbiologic outcomes, APDs seem to be as effective as conventional treatments. The primary advantage for the use of APDs in supportive periodontal therapy seems to be their ability to efficiently remove biofilm, without causing damage to the periodontal soft tissues or tooth and root structure. There may also be an advantage regarding patient comfort and time consumed. Schlagwörter: dental air abrasion, dental/instrumentation, erythritol, glycine, periodontal pocket/therapy, sodium bicarbonate