Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Enamel surface roughness assessment after debonding, employing three different removal methods.
View through CrossRef
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 were immersed in distilled water for one week. After debonding, teeth were randomly divided into three groups and subjected to different resin removal methods. A second roughness recording was taken and compared with roughness at baseline interval. Enamel surface roughness with three resin removal methods were also compared with one other. Data Analysis: SPSS Version 20.0 was used. Paired t test was applied within three groups separately to establish the comparison between the enamel surface roughnesses at baseline. One way ANOVA was used to establish the comparison of increase in enamel surface roughness among three study groups compared using different resin removal methods (slow speed tungsten carbide bur, ultrasonic scaler and composite removing pliers). Results: Slow speed tungsten carbide bur created the least increase in enamel surface roughness while ultra-sonic scaler had the most elevated values. Conclusion: Enamel surface roughness following debonding can be minimized with the use of tungsten carbide bur for resin removal in a slow speed hand piece.
Independent Medical Trust
Title: Enamel surface roughness assessment after debonding, employing three different removal methods.
Description:
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 were immersed in distilled water for one week.
After debonding, teeth were randomly divided into three groups and subjected to different resin removal methods.
A second roughness recording was taken and compared with roughness at baseline interval.
Enamel surface roughness with three resin removal methods were also compared with one other.
Data Analysis: SPSS Version 20.
0 was used.
Paired t test was applied within three groups separately to establish the comparison between the enamel surface roughnesses at baseline.
One way ANOVA was used to establish the comparison of increase in enamel surface roughness among three study groups compared using different resin removal methods (slow speed tungsten carbide bur, ultrasonic scaler and composite removing pliers).
Results: Slow speed tungsten carbide bur created the least increase in enamel surface roughness while ultra-sonic scaler had the most elevated values.
Conclusion: Enamel surface roughness following debonding can be minimized with the use of tungsten carbide bur for resin removal in a slow speed hand piece.
Related Results
Hydatid Disease of The Brain Parenchyma: A Systematic Review
Hydatid Disease of The Brain Parenchyma: A Systematic Review
Abstarct
Introduction
Isolated brain hydatid disease (BHD) is an extremely rare form of echinococcosis. A prompt and timely diagnosis is a crucial step in disease management. This ...
Comparison of Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Brackets Debonding and Surface Polishing with Restorative and Orthodontic Composites
Comparison of Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Brackets Debonding and Surface Polishing with Restorative and Orthodontic Composites
Introduction: Emergence of superficial enamel roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding leads to the accumulation of microbial plaque, resulting in the development of denta...
Posteruptive Loss of Enamel Proteins Concurs with Gain in Enamel Hardness
Posteruptive Loss of Enamel Proteins Concurs with Gain in Enamel Hardness
ABSTRACT
Tooth enamel maturation requires the removal of proteins from the mineralizing enamel matrix to allow for crystallite growth until full hardness is reached...
Correlation of enamel surface roughness, hardness, and demineralization following the use of orthodontic brackets
Correlation of enamel surface roughness, hardness, and demineralization following the use of orthodontic brackets
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to assess the correlation among altered enamel surface roughness, micro-hardness, and demineralization depth follwing the use of orthod...
Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system
Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate enamel surface integrity and time consumed during residual cement removal after bracket debonding us...
Laser Debonding for 2.5D, 3D and Emerging Advanced Packaging Solutions
Laser Debonding for 2.5D, 3D and Emerging Advanced Packaging Solutions
In recent years temporary bonding has evolved to a widely used process technology as it is an enabling process for many products relyinnovel solutions are typically assessed on two...
Cement-Formation Debonding Due to Temperature Variation in Geothermal Wells: An Intensive Numerical Simulation Assessment
Cement-Formation Debonding Due to Temperature Variation in Geothermal Wells: An Intensive Numerical Simulation Assessment
Geothermal wells are subjected to higher loads compared to conventional oil and gas wells due to the thermal cycles that occur during both production and non-production phases. The...
Evolution of tooth flank roughness during gear micropitting tests
Evolution of tooth flank roughness during gear micropitting tests
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to get a better understanding of roughness evolution and micropitting initiation on the tooth flank, as well as the evolution of surface topogra...

