Enamel Polishing after Orthodontic Bracket Debonding using two Different Protocols and two Different Adhesives (original) (raw)
Related papers
Erbil Dental Journal, 2021
Background: returning surface of the enamel to its pre-orthodontic state after debonding of brackets without any damage to the texture of enamel is a clinical contest. removal of Residual adhesive using correct and suitable tools and methods ensures a smooth surface and healthy plaque-free environment. Therefore; the study aims to determine the safest method to finish enamel surface after bracket debonding using three different methods. Method: Thirty premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were selected for this study. The samples were coded 1-30 randomly and surface roughness was measured before bracket placement using profilometer. Then bracket bonded in the middle third of the buccal surface of the premolars and then debonded using debonding plier. The sample was divided into three groups, 10 for each group (group 1: 18-flute tungsten carbide bur, group 2: 12-flute tungsten carbide bur, group 3: adhesive removing plier). Then the second roughness measurement was recorded. Result: It is found that debonding with adhesive removing plier was the least efficient method followed by 12-fluted tungsten carbide bur, so the best clean-up method in this study achieved is by using 18-fluted tungsten carbide bur. Conclusion: The 18-fluted flame-shaped tungsten carbide bur at high speed for orthodontic adhesive removal demonstrated more favorable results in our hands, as it resulted in the smoothest enamel surface and could reasonably be used as a standard by which future other burs or other procedures are compared.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2015
The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness and morphology of enamel with a surface roughness tester and scanning electron microscopy after the removal of metal brackets and polishing. Methods: Ten orthodontic patients were selected for the study. At the conclusion of orthodontic treatment, their metal brackets were removed. For each patient, teeth on one side of the mouth were randomly chosen for finishing and polishing with aluminum oxide discs (n 5 10). Teeth on the other side were finished with multilaminated carbide burs (n 5 10). Dental replicas (before and after tooth polishing) were obtained with epoxy resin. Three surface roughness measurements were made in different directions with an angle of 120 among them, and a mean for each dental replica was calculated. The roughness data were statistically evaluated by repeated-measurements analysis of variance. Three specimens from each group were also used for scanning electron microscopy analysis. Results: After resin removal, the average roughness in the carbide bur group (0.31 mm) was significantly greater than that in the aluminum oxide disc group (0.25 mm). Conclusions: The aluminum oxide disc polishing system resulted in less enamel roughness than did the multilaminated carbide bur system.
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 2016
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of enamel after debonding with various types of burs. Methods: The buccal surfaces of 20 mandibular incisors for each group of bur were subjected to profilometer analysis, and three parameters of surface irregularity were recorded. After bracket debonding, adhesive remnants were removed by tungsten carbide burs in low-speed, high-speed, and stainbuster settings. The samples were evaluated at pre-treatment (on sound enamel) (T1) and post-treatment (T2) by a profilometer. The specimens were measured twice, and the mean values were recorded. Results: The results were analyzed in intra-group comparisons with paired t-tests and in inter-group comparisons with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. All resin removal techniques significantly increased enamel surface roughness (p<0.05). According to one-way ANOVA, there were significant differences in the effect of enamel surface roughness between all methods (p<0.05). The high-speed bur caused the maximum roughness values and the stainbuster bur caused the minimum roughness values in all the parameters (Ra, Rz, and Rq). Conclusion: The three types of burs used for finishing methods revealed significant differences in the enamel surface after debonding. However, the stainbuster bur created smoother surfaces than the other applied methods.
Comparing different porcelain surface polishing techniques after orthodontic brackets debonding
2011
Objectives: The present study was designed to investigate different polishing techniques used to restore feldspathic porcelain surface regarding surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets. Methods: Metal discs of 1 cm diameter and 1 mm thickness (n=85) were prepared from Wiron 99 non-precious alloy (BEGO Bremer Goldschagerei with Herbst GmbH& Co. Bremen. Germany). The discs were veneered from one side by 1 mm thickness Vita VMK Master feldspathic porcelain (Vita zhan fabric H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG. Germany). Five of these intact samples composed the control group (C). Orthodontic metal brackets were bonded at the center of each of the remaining discs (3M, Unitek),and then discs were water stored for 30 days before rebounding. Brackets were debonded using bracket removing pliers, and resin was removed with a sharp chisel. The prepared specimens (n=80) were divided into 4 groups (n=20) according to the surface treatment they were to receive: (G1): using (Shofu, USA) por...
Progress in Orthodontics
Background: Orthodontic bonding and debonding procedures involve risk of damaging the enamel surface and changing its original morphology. The rough surface inhibits proper cleaning, invites plaque deposition, bacterial retention, and stain formation thus dampening the esthetic appearance of the teeth. Restoring the enamel to its original morphology is a challenge. Researches on better adhesive removal methods which can effectively remove the residual resin and restore it best to its original form are continuing till date. No study has compared four contemporary finishing systems for their efficiency on a single platform. Aim: The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare enamel surface roughness after debonding using four different finishing and polishing systems. Material and methods: Adhesive resin was removed from the buccal surface of 88 premolars after debonding with 4 groups. It included 22 teeth per group: group 1-One gloss system; group 2-Enhance finishing and polishing system; group 3-fiber reinforced stainbuster bur; and group 4-Soflex discs with wheels. Roughness was measured quantitatively and qualitatively with the help of surface roughness tester and scanning electron Microscope (SEM) respectively. Results: No significant difference was found in baseline roughness in four groups. Highest post-polishing roughness was observed in Soflex group (4.62 μm) followed by One gloss system (3.36 μm), Enhance system (3.17 μm), and stainbuster bur (1.99 μm) (p value < 0.01). Conclusion: Stainbuster bur created the smoothest enamel surface that was close to the natural enamel followed by Enhance system, One gloss system, and Soflex disc and wheels.
The journal of contemporary dental practice, 2023
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of using a magnifying dental loupe on enamel surface roughness during adhesive resin removal by different burs. Materials and methods: Ninety-six extracted premolar teeth were randomly divided according to the bur used with or without the aid of a magnifying loupe into four equal groups (N = 24): group I: naked eye tungsten carbide burs (NTC); group II: magnifying loupe tungsten carbide burs (MTC); group III: naked eye white stones (NWS); and group IV: magnifying loupe white stones (MWS). The initial surface roughness (R a) T0 was evaluated using a profilometer, and the scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) technique. The metal brackets were bonded and debonded after 24 hours with debonding plier. After adhesive removal, R a was evaluated again (T1) also the time spent on adhesive removal was recorded in seconds. The samples were finally polished by Sof-Lex discs and Sof-Lex spirals, and the third R a evaluation was performed (T2). Results: The results of two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that all burs increased surface roughness at T1 as compared to T0 (p < 0.001) with the highest R a values shown in group III followed by group IV, group I, and group II. After polishing, no significant difference was noted in R a values in group I and group II at T0 vs T2 (p = 1.000), while it was significant in group III and group IV (p < 0.001). Regarding the time required for adhesive removal, the shortest time was in group IV followed by groups III, II, and I, respectively. Conclusion: The use of a magnifying loupe affects the quality of the clean-up procedure by reducing the enamel surface roughness and the time spent on adhesive removal. Clinical significance: Using a magnifying loupe was helpful during orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal.
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2023
Objective Evaluating various polishing methods after bracket debonding and excessive attachment material removal for different ceramics and pretreatments. Material and methods Zirconia (ZrO2), leucite (LEU) and lithium disilicate (LiSi) specimens were pretreated with a) silica coated alumina particles (CoJet); LEU and LiSi additionally with b) hydrofluoric acid (HF), c) Monobond Etch&Prime (MEP), d) silicium carbide grinder (SiC) before bracket bonding, shearing off, ARI evaluation, excessive attachment material removal and polishing with i) Sof-Lex Discs (Soflex), ii) polishing paste (Paste), iii) polishing set (Set). Before/after polishing surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a profilometer. Martens hardness parameter were also assessed. Results Irrespective of pretreatment Ra of LEU increased the most, followed by LiSi and ZrO2 (p < 0.001, SiC: p = 0.012), in accordance with the measured Martens hardness parameter. CoJet/SiC caused greater roughness as HF/MEP (p < 0.001). The ZrO2 surface was rougher after polishing with Paste/Set (p < 0.001; p = 0.047). Ra improved in the LEU/CoJet, LEU/ SiC and LiSi/SiC groups with Soflex/Set (p < 0.001), in the LiSi/CoJet and LEU/HF groups by Soflex (p = 0.003, p < 0.001) and worsened by Paste (p = 0.017, p < 0.001). Polishing of HF or MEP pretreated LiSi with Set increased Ra (p = 0.001, p < 0.001), so did Paste in the LEU/MEP group (p < 0.001). Conclusions Paste couldn't improve the surfaces. Soflex was the only method decreasing Ra on rough surfaces and not causing roughness worsening. Polishing of LEU/LiSi after MEP, LEU after HF pretreatment doesn´t seem to have any benefit. Clinical Relevance To avoid long-term damage to ceramic restorations, special attention should be paid to the polishing method after orthodontic treatment.
Cureus
The debonding procedures should restore the enamel surface to its pre-treatment state as much as possible after removing orthodontic attachments and all remaining adhesive remnants from the surface of the tooth. The orthodontic attachments are bonded commonly by a light-cured composite system. Light-cured glass ionomer cement has been developed as an alternative to the composite as a bonding agent for orthodontic brackets. There are different methods for cleaning the residual adhesive after the removal of orthodontic attachments. The study aims to evaluate and compare the enamel surface roughness of teeth between two different adhesive systems-light cure composite and glass ionomer cement adhesives-after debonding followed by the removal of resin remnants with a tungsten carbide (TC) bur. A null hypothesis is proposed that there exists no difference in the enamel surface roughness between the two adhesive systems. Materials and methods The test sample of 40 freshly extracted human premolar teeth (n = 40) for orthodontic purposes was taken up for this in vitro study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The sample was randomly assigned into two equal groups, with metal brackets bonded in Group-I (n = 20) by light cure adhesive (Trans bond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA) and Group-II (n = 20) with light glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji Ortho LC, Tokyo, Japan). All samples were stored in water at room temperature for 24 h and brackets were debonded with a debonding plier. The removal of cement adhesive remnants was performed with a TC bur with a low-speed handpiece. The three surface roughness parameters, average roughness (Ra), root mean square roughness (Rq), and maximum roughness depth (Rmax), were measured at T1 (before bonding) and at T2 (after debonding and finishing) and the values were compared. The mode of bond failure was assessed by a modified adhesive remnant index (ARI) and the time required for the clean-up of adhesive was also noted. Statistical analysis The continuous quantitative data were statistically analyzed using SPSS Statistics v. 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Student's independent t-test/independent-samples t-test is an inferential statistical test for analyzing the difference between the two groups. Paired t-test was used for comparison within the group. The ARI between the groups was analyzed by a chi-square test. The probability (p) value for statistical significance was 0.05 or less for the difference between any two groups for all the analytical tests. Results A comparison of enamel surface roughness before bonding and after debonding for both groups revealed that there was a statistically significant difference within each group. The surface roughness values of composite resin-Ra (98.75 ± 0.96), Rq (120.38 ± 1.06), Rmax (650.14 ± 1.12)-and glass ionomer cement group-Ra (98.75 ± 0.96), Rq (62.76 ± 1.32), Rmax (434.36 ± 1.60)-show that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups with p <0.01. Conclusion There was a significant increase in the surface roughness of enamel after debonding of brackets and finishing with a TC bur with both the light cure and the glass ionomer cement adhesive systems. The light cure group showed more enamel surface roughness when compared to the glass ionomer cement group. In this study, the null hypothesis was rejected as there is a significant difference between the groups tested.
Yeditepe Dental Journal, 2016
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of prophylactic polishing protocols and mouth rinses on surface roughness of different tooth colored restoratives that were generally preferred for Class V cavities. Materials and Methods: A reinforced conventional glass ionomer, a resin modified glass ionomer, a flowable, and a nanohybrid composite were used. Forty specimens for each restorative materials were fabricated and polished and baseline surface roughness (Ra) measurements were obtained by a profilometer. Then the specimens were divided into two groups according to prophylactic polishing protocols: ultrasonic scaling or ultrasonic scaling and air polishing. Following Ra measurements prophy-lactic polishing protocols groups were divided into two subgroups for two different mouth rinses immersion and Ra measurements were obtained afterwards. Finally the specimens were re-polished and Ra values were recorded. Results: Prophylactic polishing protocols, especially air polishing, resulted in significant increases in surface roughness (p<0.001) while mouth rinses had minimal effects (p>0.05). Re-polishing procedures decreased surface roughness values. Tested glass ionomers showed worse surface roughness values compared with resin composites. Conclusion: Result of this research indicated that prophylactic polishing protocols increased surface roughness values of restorative materials, especially glass ionomers.