The aim of this in-vitro study is to compare the prophylaxis powder Airflow® Plus to a conventional prophylaxis paste with regards to surface abrasion and roughness on four different restorative materials. A total of 80 samples were fabricated, including 20 of each investigated material. Among those were a nanocomposite (Ceram X Spectra™ ST, Dentsply), a glass ionomer cement (Ketac Fill™, 3M™), a cast metal alloy (Bio Maingold SG®, Heraeus Kulzer) and a ceramic (HeraCeram® Saphir, Heraeus Kulzer). Of each material, all samples were equally divided into two groups. Samples in one group were treated with AirFlow® Plus using the AirFlow® Prophylaxis Master (EMS, Switzerland) (Group AF) and the ones in the other group with Prophy Paste (Cleanic™, Kerr, Austria) (Group CL) on a rubber cup. Applied force amounted to 1.5 N at 2000 rpm. Under controlled reproduceable conditions, a 10-year interval with 4 application per year, a total of 200 seconds, was simulated. Size of each sample amounted to 6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height. Half side of each sample were treated. While comparing the treated and untreated area of each sample, surface abrasion and roughness were measured using an optical 3D system. Roughness was measured based on the arithmetic roughness average of the surface (Ra) and root mean square of the surface roughness (Rq). The statistical evaluation of the data was carried out using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney-U-test, Wilcoxon-test and the Kruskal-Wallis test for group comparisons. In conclusion, the use of the rubber cup with Prophy Paste caused a significantly higher abrasion on composite, ceramic and gold compared to the AirFlow® Plus powder (p < 0.05). In group AF, the significant highest values for Ra were determined on GIC, followed by composite, gold and then ceramic in intragroup comparison. Ra on GIC was significantly higher in group AF (p < 0.05).