The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
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.
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.
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.
Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;108:284–93. CrossRef
Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995;65:103–10. PubMed
Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod. 1979;49:1–10. PubMed
David VA, Stanley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR. Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002;121:291–6. CrossRef
Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS, Ahn HS, Ro JH, Kim YD. Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: a 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132:71–6. CrossRef
Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;126:717–24. CrossRef
Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinşahin A, Karabulut E. Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:314–21. PubMed
Smith SC, Walsh LJ, Taverne AA. Removal of orthodontic bonding resin residues by CO2 laser radiation: surface effects. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1999;17:13–8. PubMed
Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F. Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child. 1998;65:313–7. PubMed
Sessa T, Civović J, Pajević T, Juloski J, Beloica M, Pavlović V, et al. Scanning electron microscopic examination of enamel surface after fixed orthodontic treatment: in-vivo study. Srpski Celok Lek. 2012;140:22–8. CrossRef
Baumann DF, Brauchli L, van Vaes H. The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2011;201:125–32. CrossRef
Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Latucca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140:696–702. CrossRef
Schiefelbein C, Rowland K. A comparative method of adhesive removal methods. Int J Orthod Milnawaukee. 2011;22:17–22.
Pont HB, Özcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;138(387):e1–9. discussion 387–389.
Almeida HC, Vedovello Filho M, Vedovello SA, Young AA, Ramirez-Yanez GO. Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Int J Orthod Milnawaukee. 2009;20:9–13.
Tecco S, Tetè S, D’Attilio M, Festa F. Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Minerva Stomatol. 2008;57:81–94. PubMed
Roush EL, Marshall SD, Forbes DP, Perry FU. In vitro study assessing enamel surface roughness subsequent to various final finishing procedures after debonding. Northwestern Dent Res. 1977;7:2–6.
Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran). 2013;10:82–93.
Tüfekçi E, Merrill TE, Pintado MR, Beyer JP, Brantley WA. Enamel loss associated with orthodontic adhesive removal on teeth with white spot lesions: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;125:733–9. CrossRef
Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E. Three-dimensional mea- surement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131:301. e9–15. CrossRef
Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F. Bracket bonding with 15- or 60-second etching and adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod. 1999;69:45–8. PubMed
Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Nq JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2004;29:275–9. PubMed
- Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up –comparison of three different tools
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin
Mail Icon II