Evaluation of enamel surface roughness using different types of polishing system after orthodontic bracket debonding
Abstract
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.
References
-Goel A, Singh A, Gupta T, Gambhir RS. Evaluation of surface roughness of enamel after various bonding and clean-up procedures on enamel bonded with three different bonding agents: An invitro study. J Clin Exp Dent.2017;9(5):e608-16.
-Uctasli MB, Arisu HD, Omurlu H, Eliguzeloolu E, Ozcan S, Ergun G. The effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of different composite restoration materials. J Contemp Dent Pract.2007; 8:89-96.
-Ozer T, Basaran A, Kama JD. Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2010;137:368-74.
-VidorMM, Felix RP, Marchioro EM, Hahn L.Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and, different resin removal methods. Dental Press J Orthod.2015 Mar-Apr;20(2):61-7.
- Mahdi HA, Ghaib NH, Saloom HF. Evaluation of enamel surface damage after debonding using three different pliers "An in vitro study". MDJ
;8(3):281-287.
Palmer JA, Mang T, Tabbaa S, Al-Jewair T. Analysis of enamel surface roughness after different adhesive removal techniques for orthodontic bracket
debonding. Lasers in Dental Science. 2018; 2:95–101.
Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004;
:333-8.
Ahmed T, Rahman NA, Alam M. Assessment of in vivo bond strength studies of the orthodontic bracket-adhesive system: A systematic review.
Eur J Dent. 2018; 12(04): 602-9.
Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995; 65:103-10.
Bandeca M, Porto TS, Frizzera F, de Andrade MF. Methods for removal of resin remaining after debonding of orthodontic brackets: A literature
review. Journal of Dental Research and Review 2014; 1(2):105-107.
Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL (2012) Orthodontics current principles and techniques, 5th ed. Mosby, Philidelphia.
Krell KV, Courey JM, Bishara SE. Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1993; 103:258-66.
Zarrinia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of differentent debonding techniques on the enamel surface: An in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108:284-93.
Meira Cardoso LAM, Valdrighi HC, Filho MV, Correr AB. Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014 Nov-Dec;19(6):105-12.
-Ahrari F, Akbari MJ, Dabiri G.Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques.J Dent
(Tehran) 2013;10:82-93.
Albuquerque GS, Vedovello Filho M, Lucato AS, Boeck EM, Degan V, Kuramae M. Evaluation of enamel roughness after ceramic bracket debonding and clean-up with different methods. Braz J Oral Sci. 2010; 9(2):81-4.
Mahdavie NN. The Effect of various debonding burs on the enamel surfaces of teeth after debonding metal brackets [tese]. Chicago: University of Illinois; 2012.
Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding: comparison of two different burs. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(6):1081-8.
Tavares SW. In vitro analysis of different methods of removal of residual resin in dental enamel [thesis]. Piracicaba (SP): State University of Campinas; 2006.
Pignatta LMB, Duarte Jr S, Santos ECA. Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012; 17(4):77-
Miksic M, Slaj M, Mestrovic S. Qualitative analysis of the enamel surface after removal of remnant composite. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2003;37 (3):247-51.
Hosein I, Sheirriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and clean up with the use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126(6):717-24.
Macieski K, Rocha R, Locks A, Ribeiro GU. Effects evaluation of remaining resin removal (three modes) on enamel surface after bracket debonding. Dental Press J Orthod. 2011;16(5):146-54.
Zanarini M, Gracco A, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR, Bonetti A. Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83 (5):885-91
Copyright (c) 2021 Maryam Fouad Bilal, Lanja Abubakir Ali, Deman Hasan Hamid, Rebin Ali Mohammed Amin (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
