SEM-Evaluation of enamel surfaces after orthodontic debonding: a 6 and 12-month follow-up in vivo study

Evaluation of enamel roughness after orthodontic debonding and clean-up procedures using zirconia, tungsten carbide, and white stone burs: an in vitro study

BACKGROUND

The main goal of orthodontic debonding is to restore the enamel surface as closely as possible to its pretreatment condition without iatrogenic damage. This study aimed to compare the effects of different adhesive removal burs; zirconia burs, tungsten carbide burs, and white stone burs on enamel surface roughness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Total sample of 72 extracted premolars was randomly divided into three equal groups (n = 24) depending on the method of adhesive removal: zirconia burs (ZB); tungsten carbide burs (TC); and white stones (WS). The metal brackets were bonded using Transbond XT orthodontic adhesive (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) and debonded after 24 h using a debonding plier, then the ARI was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed using the different burs and Final polishing was performed using Sof-lex discs and spirals. Thirteen samples from each group were evaluated using a Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometer to determine average surface roughness (Ra) and three samples from each group were examined under Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine EDI score. The evaluations were performed at three time points; before bonding (T0), after adhesive removal (T1) and after polishing (T2) and the time consumed for adhesive removal by burs was recorded in seconds. The data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA, Tukey's test and Kruskal-Wallis H-test.

RESULTS

Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed no statistically significant difference of ARI in all studied groups (p = 0.845) and two-way mixed ANOVA revealed that all burs significantly increased surface roughness at T1 compared to T0 (p < 0.001) in all groups with the lowest Ra values were observed in the ZB group, followed by the TC group, and WS group. The fastest procedure was performed with WS, followed by ZB, then TC bur (p < 0.001). After polishing (T2), Ra values showed no significant difference in ZB group (P = 0.428) and TC group (P = 1.000) as compared to T0, while it was significant in WS group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

zirconia bur was comparable to tungsten carbide bur and can be considered as alternative to white stone which caused severe enamel damage. The polishing step created smoother surface regardless of the bur used for resin removal.

Effect of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Nano-Hybrid and Nano-Filling Composite Resins: A Systematic Review

Background: The polishing of surface roughness is an important characteristic of composite resins and is directly related to the longevity of the restoration and patient comfort. Different polishing systems utilize different protocols, as reported in the literature. This systematic review (SR) aimed to synthesize and analyze the available scientific evidence about the effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of nano-hybrid and nano-filling composite resins. Methods: The study protocol of this SR was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews -PROSPERO- (CRD4201705653). A search was conducted in PubMed-Medline, Scopus, LILACS, EMBASE, for the period 2007–2020. Quality appraisal and a descriptive analysis of the papers that met the inclusion criteria were conducted. Results: 18 records were included. Seven polishing systems (PS) of one step were found, seven PS of two steps, eight PS of three steps, three PS of four steps, and four PS of five steps. Polishing protocols (PP) varied, with application times ranging from 10 s to 60 s with speeds between 10,000 and 30,000 RPM. Regarding composition, the aluminum oxide was one of the most important components used to achieve a smooth surface. Conclusions: Multistep polishing systems were the most effective (i.e., Astropol and Sof-Lex Discs).

Debonding and Clean-Up in Orthodontics: Evaluation of Different Techniques and Micro-Morphological Aspects of the Enamel Surface

There is currently no consensus on the best way to remove adhesive remnants from teeth following debonding. The main objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of four adhesive resin removal (clean-up) techniques, performed with or without the use of an operative microscope. Forty human teeth were duplicated using an epoxy resin for impregnation. Brackets were bonded to teeth and debonded from teeth. Then, the samples were randomly divided into two equal groups-the naked eye group and the magnification group-and further subdivided into four equal subgroups, in order to compare the different techniques used for the clean-up. Each subgroup was formed of five natural teeth with the respective pre- and post-bonding replicas. Macro- and micro-analysis by means of a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscopy evaluated, qualitatively and quantitatively, the adhesive remnant index and the damage index of the enamel. Overall, the magnification improved the removal of resins compared to the naked eye (p < 0.001), and the use of magnification constantly reduced resin residual and surface damage. Enamel damage and adhesive residual from the clean-up procedures represent an ascertained risk in orthodontics. The use of a magnification system improves the quality of debonding and clean-up techniques in a significant way.

Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal-an in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic bonding and debonding procedures involve risk of damaging the enamel surface and changing its original morphology. The rough surface inhibits proper cleaning, invites plaque deposition, bacterial retention, and stain formation thus dampening the esthetic appearance of the teeth. Restoring the enamel to its original morphology is a challenge. Researches on better adhesive removal methods which can effectively remove the residual resin and restore it best to its original form are continuing till date. No study has compared four contemporary finishing systems for their efficiency on a single platform.

AIM

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare enamel surface roughness after debonding using four different finishing and polishing systems.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Adhesive resin was removed from the buccal surface of 88 premolars after debonding with 4 groups. It included 22 teeth per group: group 1-One gloss system; group 2-Enhance finishing and polishing system; group 3-fiber reinforced stainbuster bur; and group 4-Soflex discs with wheels. Roughness was measured quantitatively and qualitatively with the help of surface roughness tester and scanning electron Microscope (SEM) respectively.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in baseline roughness in four groups. Highest post-polishing roughness was observed in Soflex group (4.62 μm) followed by One gloss system (3.36 μm), Enhance system (3.17 μm), and stainbuster bur (1.99 μm) (p value < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Stainbuster bur created the smoothest enamel surface that was close to the natural enamel followed by Enhance system, One gloss system, and Soflex disc and wheels.

Effect of orthodontic debonding and residual adhesive removal on 3D enamel microroughness

Background

Termination of fixed orthodontic treatment is associated with bracket debonding and residual adhesive removal. These procedures increase enamel roughness to a degree that should depend on the tool used. Enamel roughening may be associated with bacterial retention and staining. However, a very limited data exists on the alteration of 3D enamel roughness resulting from the use of different tools for orthodontic clean-up.

Aims

1. To perform a precise assessment of 3D enamel surface roughness resulting from residual adhesive removal following orthodontic debonding molar tubes.

2. To compare enamel surfaces resulting from the use of tungsten carbide bur, a one-step polisher and finisher and Adhesive Residue Remover.

Material and Methods

Buccal surfaces of forty-five extracted human third molars were analysed using a confocal laser microscope at the magnification of 1080× and 3D roughness parameters were calculated. After 20 s etching, molar tubes were bonded, the teeth were stored in 0.9% saline solution for 24 hours and debonded. Residual adhesive was removed using in fifteen specimen each: a twelve-fluted tungsten carbide bur, a one-step finisher and polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover. Then, surface roughness analysis was repeated. Data normality was assessed using Shapiro–Wilk test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare between variables of normal distribution and for the latter—Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

Sa (arithmetical mean height) was significantly different between the groups (p = 0, 01326); the smoothest and most repeatable surfaces were achieved using Adhesive Residue Remover. Similarly, Sq (root mean square height of the scale-limited surface) had the lowest and most homogenous values for Adhesive Residue Remover (p = 0, 01108). Sz (maximum height of the scale-limited surface) was statistically different between the groups (p = 0, 0327), however no statistically significant differences were found concerning Ssk (skewness of the scale-limited surface).

Discussion

Confocal laser microscopy allowed 3D surface analysis of enamel surface, avoiding the limitations of contact profilometry. Tungsten carbide burs are the most popular adhesive removing tools, however, the results of the present study indicate, that a one step polisher and finisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover are less detrimental to the enamel. This is in agreement with a recent study based on direct 3D scanning enamel surface. It proved, that a one-step finisher and polisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover are characterized by a similar effectiveness in removing residual remnants as tungsten carbide bur, but they remove significantly less enamel.

Conclusion

Orthodontic debonding and removal of adhesive remnants increases enamel roughness. The smoothest surfaces were achieved using Adhesive Residue Remover, and the roughest using tungsten carbide bur.