A Comparative Evaluation of Enamel Surface Roughness of Two Different Bonding Adhesives After Debonding With Atomic Force Microscopy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evaluation of Enamel Surface after Removal of Adhesive Resin: An in Vitro Study
Orthodontic Journal of Nepal, 2018
Introduction: Preservation of the enamel surface during the removal of orthodontic appliance is an essential aspect for clinicians. However, various therapeutic measures can affect the enamel surface. The objective of the research is to evaluate the roughness of enamel surface after the removal of adhesive resin. Materials & Method: 40 extracted human premolar teeth were randomly divided into two groups and the enamel surfaces were initially subjected to profilometer for the assessment of surface roughness. Following bracket bonding, debonding was done and adhesive resin was removed by stainless steel bur in Group A and tungsten carbide bur in Group B. Again, the surface roughness was measured by profilometer. Independent t-test was performed to compare the enamel surface roughness between two groups and paired t-test to compare the enamel surface roughness within the groups. Result: The mean average surface roughness of stainless steel bur was 27.009 ± 4.8420 μm and tungsten carbid...
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.
Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Introduction: At orthodontic treatment completion, knowledge about the effects of adhesive remnant removal on enamel is paramount. Objective: This study aimed at assessing the effect of different adhesive remnant removal methods on enamel topography (ESI) and surface roughness (Ra) after bracket debonding and polishing. Methods: A total of 50 human premolars were selected and divided into five groups according to the method used for adhesive remnant removal: high speed tungsten carbide bur (TCB), Sof-Lex discs (SL), adhesive removing plier (PL), ultrasound (US) and Fiberglass burs (FB). Metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT, stored at 37 o C for 24 hours before debonding with adhesive removing plier. Subsequently, removal methods were carried out followed by polishing with pumice paste. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted with pre-bonding, post-debonding and post-polishing analyses. Results were submitted to statistical analysis with F test (ANOVA) and Tukey's (Ra) as well as with Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni tests (ESI) (P < 0.05). Results: US Ra and ESI were significantly greater than TCB, SL, PL and FB. Polishing minimized Ra and ESI in the SL and FB groups. Conclusion: Adhesive remnant removal with SL and FB associated with polishing are recommended due to causing little damage to the enamel.
The Angle Orthodontist
Objectives To perform an in vitro qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the enamel surface (by scanning electronic microscopy [SEM] and measuring polishing time and roughness analysis, respectively) among four methods to remove remaining orthodontic adhesive after bracket debonding. Materials and Methods Forty-one human premolars were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) according to the adhesive remnant removal method and one tooth was used as control: Group 1 (G1): Enhance (Dentsply, Milford, USA); Group 2 (G2): Fiberglass (TDV, Pomerode, Brazil); Group 3 (G3): DU10CA-Ortho (Dian Fong Industrial, Shenzhen, China); Group 4 (G4): Sof-Lex Pop-On (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). Roughness was measured before bonding and after complete removal of the remaining adhesive (Ra2). SEM analysis was performed on one sample of each group after adhesive removal and polishing. The time required for adhesive remnant removal and polishing was measured in all groups. Analysis of variance and...
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.
Enamel surface roughness after debonding Comparison of two different burs
Objective: To test the hypotheses that (1) there is no significant difference between the effects of two burs on the surface roughness of enamel after orthodontic debonding, and (2) there is no difference between resin removal times of the two burs. Materials and Methods: The crowns of 20 premolars were embedded in acrylic blocks, and the buccal surfaces were subjected to atomic force microscopy (AFM), with measurement of initial roughness values. The brackets were bonded with a light-cured adhesive and were debonded with a debonding plier. In half of samples, adhesive remnants were removed with a tungsten carbide bur, whereas a fiber-reinforced composite bur was used in the other half. The second AFM measurements were made after resin removal. Duration of removal procedures was also recorded. Results of roughness and duration measurements were analyzed with the use of repeated measurements analysis of variance and independent t-tests, respectively. Results: The two resin removal instruments had significantly different effects on enamel roughness; higher average roughness (Sa) (P , .001), root mean square roughness (Sq) (P 5 .046), and maximum roughness depth (Smax) (P , .001) values were obtained with use of the tungsten carbide bur. Time required for resin removal with the composite bur was significantly greater than time required with the carbide bur (P , .001). Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. The composite bur used for resin removal creates smoother surfaces after orthodontic bonding; however, the process takes longer than it does when the tungsten carbide bur is used.
The European Journal of Orthodontics, 2013
The objective of this study was to test the effects of enamel deproteinization on bracket bonding with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). One hundred premolars, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were divided into five groups (n = 20). Group 1 (control): enamel was etched with 35 per cent phosphoric acid, a thin layer of adhesive was applied, and the brackets were bonded with Transbond XT. Group 2: enamel was etched with 10 per cent polyacrylic acid and the brackets were bonded with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC). Group 3: enamel was treated with 5.25 per cent NaOCl, etched with 10 per cent polyacrylic acid, and the brackets were bonded with conventional GIC. Group 4: enamel was etched with 10 per cent polyacrylic acid and the brackets were bonded with RMGIC. Group 5: enamel was treated with 5.25 per cent NaOCl, etched with 10 per cent polyacrylic acid, and the brackets were bonded with RMGIC. The teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours before they were submitted to shear testing. The results demonstrated that bond strength values of group 1 (17.08 ± 6.39 MPa) were significantly higher in comparison with the other groups. Groups 2 (3.43 ± 1.94 MPa) and 3 (3.92 ± 1.57 MPa) presented values below the average recommended in the literature. With regard to adhesive remnant index, the groups in which the enamel was treated with NaOCl showed a behaviour similar to that of the resin composite. It is conclude with enamel treatment with NaOCl increased bonding strength of brackets bonded with GIC and RMGIC, but increased bond strength was not statistically significant when compared to the untreated groups.
Enamel surface roughness assessment after debonding, employing three different removal methods
The Professional Medical Journal
The search for an efficient and safe resin removal method after debonding has resulted in the introduction of a wide array of instruments and techniques. In the previously, safety of rotary instruments was limited to inspecting the surface under a scanning electron microscope that lacks a quantitative scale. In this study, comparative assessment of the enamel roughness was done quantitavely using surface profilometer. Objectives: To evaluate quantitatively the enamel surface roughness following debonding using three different resin removal methods (composite removing pliers, ultrasonic scaler and low speed Tungsten Carbide bur). Study Design: Prospective study. Setting: Orthodontic clinic of Ihsan Mumtaz Hospital Lahore and PCSIR (Lahore). Period: 6 months from June 2018 to December 2018. Material and Methods: Ninety, healthy extracted maxillary premolars were taken and subjected to profilometric analysis to register four roughness parameters. Brackets were bonded and all specimens ...
Enamel Roughness Changes after Removal of Orthodontic Adhesive
Dentistry journal, 2018
The aim of this study was to evaluate enamel roughness, quality of the enamel surfaces and time duration comparing different orthodontic adhesive removal protocols. Premolars were used to test three adhesive removal methods ( = 20): five-blade carbide bur, 30-blade carbide bur, and ultrasonic diamond bur. Bracket was bonded using Transbond XT adhesive. Roughness with different parameters was measured before bracket bonding and after adhesive remnants removal. Micromorphological analysis of enamel surface ( = 5) was performed by SEM images and categorized in enamel damage index-"perfect"; "satisfying"; "imperfect"; and "unacceptable". Time was measured in seconds. All removal methods caused increased roughness in relation to , , and parameters ( axis) comparing to healthy enamel surface. Enamel surface resulted from removal using five-blade burs was scored as satisfactory. Carbide bur groups decreased the roughness values of , , and parameters ...
Lasers in Dental Science, 2018
Background The objectives of this study were to explore traditional resin removal procedures in the debonding process and evaluate the Er:YAG laser as a plausible option. Methods Sixty premolar teeth were bonded with brackets. Then, brackets were removed and five adhesive clean-up methods were tested against control teeth: (a) Er:YAG laser at 200 mJ and 20 Hz; (b) Er:YAG laser at 305 mJ and 10 Hz; (c) 20-fluted flame-shaped tungsten carbide bur at high-speed; (d) #8-fluted round tungsten carbide bur at low-speed; and (e) #5 round end tapered fine diamond bur at high speed. Quantitative measurements including average (Avg) profile height, total indicator run-out (TIR), arithmetic average roughness (R a), and time were made using profilometry. Qualitative evaluation of tooth surfaces was done using SEM. Results The two laser settings produced a statistically higher TIR, R a , and time compared to the controls (P < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the three bur techniques in regards to surface texture or time. Qualitatively, the 20-fluted carbide bur left the smoothest surface. Conclusion The Er:YAG laser at the tested settings would not be appropriate for adhesive removal. The interaction of the Er:YAG wavelength under these conditions was not comparable to the 20-fluted flame-shaped tungsten carbide bur at high speed for orthodontic adhesive removal leaving a smoother enamel surface.