A Comparative Evaluation of Enamel Surface Roughness of Two Different Bonding Adhesives After Debonding With Atomic Force Microscopy (original) (raw)

Abstract

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.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (28)

  1. Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M: Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004, 26:333-8. 10.1093/ejo/26.3.333
  2. Pont HB, Özcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y: Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010, 138:387.e1-9. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.028
  3. Ozer T, Başaran G, Kama JD: Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment . Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010, 137:368-74. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.025
  4. Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR: Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011, 140:696-702. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.02.027
  5. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tandecka K, Szatkiewicz T, Stępień P, Sporniak-Tutak K, Grocholewicz K: Three- dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up -comparison of three different tools. BMC Oral Health. 2015, 15:146. 10.1186/s12903-015-0131-6
  6. Eliades T, Kakaboura A, Eliades G, Bradley TG: Comparison of enamel colour changes associated with orthodontic bonding using two different adhesives. Eur J Orthod. 2001, 23:85-90. 10.1093/ejo/23.1.85
  7. Boncuk Y, Cehreli ZC, Polat-Özsoy Ö: Effects of different orthodontic adhesives and resin removal techniques on enamel color alteration. Angle Orthod. 2014, 84:634-41. 10.2319/060613-433.1
  8. Ireland AJ, Hosein I, Sherriff M: Enamel loss at bond-up, debond and clean-up following the use of a conventional light-cured composite and a resin-modified glass polyalkenoate cement. Eur J Orthod. 2005, 27:413-9. 10.1093/ejo/cji031
  9. Fan XC, Chen L, Huang XF: Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017, 17:58. 10.1186/s12903-017-0349-6
  10. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B: Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010, 80:1081- 8. 10.2319/012610-55.1
  11. Mohebi S, Shafiee HA, Ameli N: Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding with atomic force microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017, 151:521-7. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.025
  12. Machoy M, Wilczyński S, Szyszka-Sommerfeld L, Woźniak K, Deda A, Kulesza S: Mapping of nanomechanical properties of enamel surfaces due to orthodontic treatment by AFM method. Appl Sci. 2021, 11:3918. 10.3390/app11093918
  13. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K: Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel -current knowledge and future perspectives -a systematic review. Med Sci Monit. 2014, 20:1991-2001. 10.12659/MSM.890912
  14. Brosh T, Kaufman A, Balabanovsky A, Vardimon AD: In vivo debonding strength and enamel damage in two orthodontic debonding methods. J Biomech. 2005, 38:1107-13. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.025
  15. Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR: Shear bond strength of composite, glass ionomer, and acidic primer adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999, 115:24-8. 10.1016/S0889- 5406(99)70312-4
  16. Erdur EA, Akın M, Cime L, İleri Z: Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after various finishing techniques for debonding of orthodontic brackets. Turk J Orthod. 2016, 29:1-5. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.15-00016R1
  17. Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L: Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application . Am J Orthod. 1977, 71:651-65. 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90281-0
  18. Campbell PM: Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding . Angle Orthod. 1995, 65:103-10. 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0103:ESAOBD>2.0.CO;2
  19. Chadwick SM, Gordon PH: An investigation into the fluoride release of a variety of orthodontic bonding agents. Br J Orthod. 1995, 22:29-33. 10.1179/bjo.22.1.29
  20. Rix D, Foley TF, Mamandras A: Comparison of bond strength of three adhesives: composite resin, hybrid GIC, and glass-filled GIC. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001, 119:36-42. 10.1067/mod.2001.110519
  21. Shammaa I, Ngan P, Kim H, Kao E, Gladwin M, Gunel E, Brown C: Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthod. 1999, 69:463-9. 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0463:COBDFB>2.3.CO;2
  22. Toledano M, Osorio R, Osorio E, Romeo A, De la Higuera B, García-Godoy F: Bond strength of orthodontic brackets using different light and self-curing cements. Angle Orthod. 2003, 73:56-63. 10.1043/0003- 3219(2003)073<0056:BSOOBU>2.0.CO;2
  23. Cheng HY, Chen CH, Li CL, Tsai HH, Chou TH, Wang WN: Bond strength of orthodontic light-cured resin- modified glass ionomer cement. Eur J Orthod. 2011, 33:180-4. 10.1093/ejo/cjq056
  24. Bucur SM, Bud A, Gligor A, Vlasa A, Cocoș DI, Bud ES: Observational study regarding two bonding systems and the challenges of their use in orthodontics: an in vitro evaluation. Appl Sci. 2021, 11:7091. 10.3390/app11157091
  25. Faria-Júnior ÉM, Guiraldo RD, Berger SB, Correr AB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Contreras EF, Lopes MB: In-vivo evaluation of the surface roughness and morphology of enamel after bracket removal and polishing by different techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015, 147:324-9. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.10.033
  26. Caixeta RV, Berger SB, Lopes MB, et al.: Evaluation of enamel roughness after the removal of brackets bonded with different materials: in vivo study. Braz Dent J. 2021, 32:34-40. 10.1590/0103-6440202104399
  27. Binnig G: Atomic Force Microscope and Method for Imaging Surfaces with Atomic Resolution, US Patent No. 4,724,318. 1986.
  28. Wennerberg A, Sawase T, Kultje C: The influence of Carisolv on enamel and dentine surface topography . Eur J Oral Sci. 1999, 107:297-306. 10.1046/j.0909-8836.1999.eos107410.x