Skip to main content

01.12.2015 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2015 Open Access

BMC Oral Health 1/2015

Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up –comparison of three different tools

BMC Oral Health > Ausgabe 1/2015
Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska, Katarzyna Tandecka, Tomasz Szatkiewicz, Piotr Stępień, Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak, Katarzyna Grocholewicz
Wichtige Hinweise

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

JJO - study conception and design, data interpretation, writing manuscript. KT and TS - 3D scanning and data processing, participation in data interpretation. PS - statistical analysis and its interpretation. KST - providing material for the study (extracted teeth), participation in manuscript preparation. KG - critical revising for intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Authors’ information

JJO is a practising orthodontist and senior lecturer Department of General Dentistry. KT and TS are engineer scientists and assistant professors Faculty of Mechanical Engineering. PS is engineer scientist, associate professor Department of Technology and Education. KST is a practising specialist in both oral and maxillofacial surgery, head of Clinic of Maxillofacial Surgery. KG is a practising specialist in prosthetic dentistry, head of an interdisciplinary Department of General Dentistry.



The present study aimed at 3D analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss following the debonding of orthodontic molar tubes and orthodontic clean-up to assess the effectiveness and safety of One-Step Finisher and Polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover in comparison to tungsten carbide bur.

Materials and methods

Thirty human molars were bonded with chemical-cure orthodontic adhesive (Unite, 3M, USA), stored 24 h in 0.9 % saline solution, debonded and cleaned using three methods (Three groups of ten): tungsten carbide bur (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany), one-step finisher and polisher (One gloss, Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan) and Adhesive Residue Remover (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany). Direct 3D scanning in blue-light technology to the nearest 2 μm was performed before etching and after adhesive removal. Adhesive remnant height and volume as well as enamel loss depth and volume were calculated.
An index of effectiveness and safety was proposed and calculated for every tool; adhesive remnant volume and duplicated enamel lost volume were divided by a sum of multiplicands. Comparisons using parametric ANOVA or nonparametric ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare between tools for adhesive remnant height and volume, enamel loss depth and volume as well as for the proposed index.


No statistically significant differences in the volume (p = 0.35) or mean height (p = 0.24) of adhesive remnants were found (ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis test) between the groups of teeth cleaned using different tools. Mean volume of enamel loss was 2.159 mm3 for tungsten carbide bur, 1.366 mm3 for Shofu One Gloss and 0.659 mm3 for Adhesive Residue Remover - (F = 2.816, p = 0.0078). A comparison of the proposed new index between tools revealed highly statistically significant differences (p = 0.0081), supporting the best value for Adhesive Residue Remover and the worst – for tungsten carbide bur.


The evaluated tools were all characterized by similar effectiveness. The most destructive tool with regards to enamel was the tungsten carbide bur, and the least was Adhesive Residue Removal.
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

BMC Oral Health 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.