Materials and methods used for adhesive remnant removal and polishing of enamel after orthodontic treatment: areview (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
Surface Degradation of Enamel Due To Debonding Of Brackets
IOSR Journals , 2019
Preserving the dental enamel structure during removal of orthodontic brackets is a clinician's obligation. Debonding aims to remove orthodontic attachments and all remaining adhesives from the tooth and to restore the surface to its permanent state as much as possible. The occurrence of scarring on the enamel surface after adhesive removal appears to be inevitable but, the damage can be reduced to a negligible level if selecting a proper technique. This review discusses about the various materials used for debonding of brackets and the damage caused to the enamel due to debonding of brackets.
2020
Many techniques were developed for enamel polishing after orthodontic bracket debonding to keep the enamel surface as smooth as possible to pretreatment condition, in addition to many bracket adhesives used for orthodontic brackets bonding. This study aimed to compare the effect of two different adhesive materials and polishing protocols on enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets. Forty maxillary premolars were divided into four groups, orthodontic brackets were bonded using two different adhesive materials (Resilience LC Orthodontic Adhesive from Orthotechnology and Bisco Ortho bracket paste LC from Bisco). After brackets debonding adhesive remnants were removed using carbide bur followed by either Enhance Finishing tip then Prisma Gloss Polishing Cup with Prisma Gloss Polishing Paste or High Shine Enamel Polisher and Astropol green polishing cups. Then Atomic force microscope was used to evaluate surface roughness parameters among groups. The roughness data were statistically analyzed with Tukey post hoc test. Results showed significantly lower surface roughness parameters with Bisco Ortho bracket paste group compared with Resilience LC Orthodontic Adhesive group when both were polished with Enhance Finishing tip and Prisma Gloss Polishing Paste. Additionally, significantly lower Sz (Ten points height) value was seen with Bisco Ortho bracket paste group polished with Enhance Finishing tip and Prisma Gloss Polishing Paste in comparison with Resilience LC Orthodontic Adhesive polished with High Shine Enamel Polisher and Astropol green polishing cups. Pre-mounted, aluminum oxide impregnated, cured urethane dimethacrylate resin finishers tips (Enhance finishing tips) with a fine-grit aluminum-oxide polishing paste (Prisma Gloss Polishing Paste) could produce smoother enamel surface than 5 micron diamond grit suspended in resilient silicone tip (high shine enamel polisher) followed by Multiple-use polishing cups consist of silicone rubber and silicon carbide particles (Astropol green polishing cups) when Bisco Ortho bracket paste LC used. Experimental article (J Int Dent Med Res 2020; 13(1): 86-90)
Comparison between two methods for resin removing after bracket debonding
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 2012
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess -using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) -the effectiveness of two abrasive discs, one made from silicon and one from aluminum oxide, in removing adhesive remnants (AR) after debonding orthodontic brackets.
Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study
Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficiency of six protocols for cleaning-up tooth enamel after bracket debonding. Methods: A total of 60 premolars were divided into six groups, according to the tools used for clean-up: 12-blade bur at low speed (G12L), 12-blade bur at high speed (G12H), 30-blade bur at low speed (G30L), DU10CO ORTHO polisher (GDU), Renew System (GR) and Diagloss polisher (GD). Mean roughness (Ra) and mean roughness depth (Rz) of enamel surface were analyzed with a profilometer. Paired t-test was used to assess Ra and Rz before and after enamel clean-up. ANOVA/Tukey tests were used for intergroup comparison. The duration of removal procedures was recorded. The association between time and variation in enamel roughness (∆Ra, ∆Rz) were evaluated by Pearson's correlation test. Enamel topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: In Groups G12L and G12H, original enamel roughness did not change significantly. In Groups G30L, GDU, GR and GD, a smoother surface (p < 0.05) was found after clean-up. In Groups G30L and GD, the protocols used were more time-consuming than those used in the other groups. Negative and moderate correlation was observed between time and (∆Ra, ∆Rz); Ra and (∆Ra, ∆Rz); Rz (r = -0.445, r = -0.475, p < 0.01). Conclusion: All enamel clean-up protocols were efficient because they did not result in increased surface roughness. The longer the time spent performing the protocol, the lower the surface roughness.
Journal of Orthodontic Science, 2015
Objectives: To conduct an epidemiological survey of the orthodontic debonding techniques in Italy, and describe the most commonly used methods to remove the brackets and adhesive from the tooth surfaces. Materials and Methods: A survey consisting of 6 questions about bracket debonding methods and instruments used was emailed to 1000 orthodontists, who were members of the Italian Orthodontics Society (SIDO. Clinicians were characterized by different sex, age, origin, and professional experience. Results: Overall, 267 surveys were returned, representing a response rate of 26.7% of the participants interviewed. The 0.2% of the orthodontists responded, via email, confirming that they were not interested, while 3% of the questionnaires were sent back not completed. The 70.1% of the clinicians interviewed did not return any response. Overall, 64% of SIDO members (orthodontists) did not detect any enamel damage after debonding. The brackets used most frequently (89.14%) in clinical practice were the metal ones. The most commonly used pliers for bracket removal were cutters (37.08%) and bracket removal pliers (34.83%). For adhesive removal, low speed tungsten carbide burs under irrigation were the most widely utilized method for adhesive removal (40.08%), followed by high speed carbide burs (14.19%), and diamond burs (14.19%). The most frequently used instruments for polishing after debonding were rubber cups (36.70%) and abrasive discs (21.35%). The 31.21% of the orthodontists found esthetic enamel changes before bonding versus after debonding. Conclusions: This survey showed the high variability of different methods for bracket debonding, adhesive removal, and tooth polishing. The collected answers indicate that most orthodontists have developed their own armamentarium of debonding and polishing, basing their method on trials and errors.
The effects of bracket removal on enamel
Australian orthodontic journal, 2008
Enamel cracks, which may develop during debonding orthodontic brackets, may jeopardise the integrity of the enamel and detract from the appearance of the teeth. To compare the adhesive remnant scores (ARI), the number, lengths and directions of enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding metal orthodontic brackets with three different methods. Metal brackets were bonded with a self-curing orthodontic adhesive to the buccal surfaces of 75 recently extracted upper and lower premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups, and the brackets removed either with a side-cutter, a single-blade bracket remover or a two-blade bracket remover. The number, directions and lengths of the enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding were compared. The number of 'pronounced' cracks (i.e. cracks that could be identified with the naked eye) and the ARI scores in each group were also compared. After debonding, the number of enamel cracks and pronounced cracks, and the len...
Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2014
After orthodontic treatment, brackets are debonded and residual adhesive is removed, causing iatrogenic enamel damage. The aim of this study was to review the methods of orthodontic adhesive removal, find clear evidence, and provide a rationale for this procedure. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences, Scopus, Cochrane, Google, and Google Scholar using keywords: orthodontic adhesive removal, orthodontic debonding, orthodontic clean-up. Studies concerning human enamel roughness or loss from debonding and adhesive removal were considered. Forty-four full-text articles were analyzed and 3 were rejected after detailed reading; finally 41 papers were included. Fifteen qualitative studies, 13 studies based on indices of enamel surface, and 13 quantitative studies were found. No meta-analysis could be performed due to a lack of homogenous quantitative evidence. The most popular tools were tungsten carbide burs, which were faster and more effective than So...
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.
Effects of Different Stain Removal Protocols on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Aim: To evaluate the effect of different stain removal protocols with or without topical fluoride application on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel. Materials and methods: Eighty extracted premolars were randomly assigned into four groups according to the stain removal protocol. The stain removal protocols were (1) using rubber cup with prophylaxis paste in (G1, n = 20), (2) air-abrasion with prophy-jet polishing system (G2, n = 20), (3) micro-abrasion with opalusture polishing paste (G3, n = 20), and (4) macroabrasion with ultrafine diamond finishing tips (G4, n = 20). Ten teeth in each group (SG1, n = 10) had no topical fluoride treatment after stain removal protocol, while the rest (SG2, n = 10) were subjected to topical fluoride application. After bonding the orthodontic brackets, all specimens were thermocycled before testing their bracket-enamel bond strength. The debonded bracket and enamel surfaces of each specimen were also assessed to determine the adhesive remnant index (ARI) for each subgroup. Results: Specimens in G2, G3, and G4 recorded lower shear bond strength as compared with G1 (p < 0.05). For all groups, specimens in SG2 demonstrated lower bond strength than their counterpart in SG1 (p < 0.05). No significant differences were detected between the ARIs of different subgroups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Bonding orthodontic brackets is affected by the protocol of removing enamel stains. The use of the rubber cup