Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate enamel surface integrity and time consumed during residual cement removal after bracket debonding using different adhesive removal burs with and without a dental loupe.
Material and Methods
Sixty human-extracted premolars were collected, cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Teeth were randomly divided into three main groups (n = 20) based on the adhesive removal method: tungsten carbide system (TC), sof-lex discs system (SD), and diamond system (DB) groups. Then, each group was subdivided into two subgroups (naked eye and magnifying loupe subgroups). The brackets were bonded and then debonded after 24 h, and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed by different systems, and the final polishing was performed by Silicone OneGloss. The enamel surface roughness was evaluated before bracketing (T0), after residual cement removal (T1), and finally after polishing (T2) using surface Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine the Enamel Damage Index (EDI) score. The time consumed for adhesive removal was recorded in seconds.
Results
The Kruskal Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in roughness values at T1 compared to T2 between subgroups (p < 0.001). When comparing EDI at T1 and T2, the Kruskal–Wallis H-test showed statistically significant differences in all subgroups. The pairwise comparisons revealed that EDI scores showed a statistically significant difference at T1 and T2 between DB vs. TC and SD (p = 0.015) but not between TC vs. SD (p = 1.000), indicating the highest roughness value observed in the DB group. The time for cement removal was significantly shorter in the magnifying loupe group than in the naked eye group and was shortest with the TC group, whereas the time was the longest with the DB group (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
All three systems were clinically satisfactory for residual orthodontic adhesive removal. However, TC system produced the lowest enamel roughness, while the DB system created the greatest. The polishing step created smoother surfaces regardless of the systems used for resin removal.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Title: Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system
Description:
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate enamel surface integrity and time consumed during residual cement removal after bracket debonding using different adhesive removal burs with and without a dental loupe.
Material and Methods
Sixty human-extracted premolars were collected, cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding.
Teeth were randomly divided into three main groups (n = 20) based on the adhesive removal method: tungsten carbide system (TC), sof-lex discs system (SD), and diamond system (DB) groups.
Then, each group was subdivided into two subgroups (naked eye and magnifying loupe subgroups).
The brackets were bonded and then debonded after 24 h, and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assessed.
The adhesive remnants were removed by different systems, and the final polishing was performed by Silicone OneGloss.
The enamel surface roughness was evaluated before bracketing (T0), after residual cement removal (T1), and finally after polishing (T2) using surface Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine the Enamel Damage Index (EDI) score.
The time consumed for adhesive removal was recorded in seconds.
Results
The Kruskal Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in roughness values at T1 compared to T2 between subgroups (p < 0.
001).
When comparing EDI at T1 and T2, the Kruskal–Wallis H-test showed statistically significant differences in all subgroups.
The pairwise comparisons revealed that EDI scores showed a statistically significant difference at T1 and T2 between DB vs.
TC and SD (p = 0.
015) but not between TC vs.
SD (p = 1.
000), indicating the highest roughness value observed in the DB group.
The time for cement removal was significantly shorter in the magnifying loupe group than in the naked eye group and was shortest with the TC group, whereas the time was the longest with the DB group (p < 0.
05).
Conclusion
All three systems were clinically satisfactory for residual orthodontic adhesive removal.
However, TC system produced the lowest enamel roughness, while the DB system created the greatest.
The polishing step created smoother surfaces regardless of the systems used for resin removal.
Related Results
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...
The Influence of Thermocycling Testing on Enamel Microcracks following the Metal Orthodontic Brackets Debonding
The Influence of Thermocycling Testing on Enamel Microcracks following the Metal Orthodontic Brackets Debonding
Enamel microcracks (EMCs) arising during the removal of metal orthodontic brackets represent a considerable challenge in dentistry. This in vitro study aims to explore the impacts ...
Enamel surface roughness assessment after debonding, employing three different removal methods.
Enamel surface roughness assessment after debonding, employing three different removal methods.
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 ...
Effects of bracket design on critical contact angle
Effects of bracket design on critical contact angle
ABSTRACT
Objective:
To explore how the position of the bracket slots relative to the archwire influences the friction between them, and how bracket des...
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...
Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals
Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals
Abstract
The rapid growth of open access publishing (OAP) has significantly improved the accessibility and dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, this expansion has also c...
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...

