Evaluation of Enamel Roughness in Vitro After Orthodontic Bracket Debonding Using Different Methods of Residual Adhesive Removal

Bond Strength and Surface Roughness of Two Ceramics After Metal Bracket Debonding

Objective

The aims of this study were to compare the bond strength between metallic brackets and two different glass ceramics and to evaluate the ceramic surface roughness after different finishing protocols.

Methods

The surface roughness of lithium disilicate and resin matrix ceramic samples was measured (initial). All samples were treated with hydrofluoric acid and silane and bonded to metallic brackets with orthodontic cement adhesive. Shear bond strength tests were performed using a universal testing machine (n=12). The surface roughness was measured again (intermediate, n=6) after removing the remaining cement adhesive from the ceramic surfaces with a diamond or 24-blade bur after polishing the ceramic surfaces (final, n=6).

Results

The resin matrix ceramic had the highest bond strength. The rotatory instrument used for the removal of cement adhesive did not affect the surface roughness of the resin matrix ceramic or lithium disilicate (p=0.985 and p=0.504, respectively), but did affect the evaluation time (p<0.001) for both restorative materials. The intermediate roughness was the highest. For the resin matrix ceramic, polishing promoted a final surface roughness similar to the initial condition; however, changes in the surface shape of this ceramic could be visibly observed when using a 24-blade bur.

Conclusion

The bond strength of metallic brackets bonded on resin-matrix ceramics is higher than bonding on lithium disilicate. The use of diamond burs for the removal of the remaining adhesive from the resin matrix ceramics is highly recommended.

The Influence of Various Adhesive Systems and Polishing Methods on Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets: A Three-Dimensional In Vitro Evaluation

A slight alteration of the enamel surface is inevitable upon debonding of orthodontic brackets, adhesive removal, and finishing/polishing. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare two adhesives and three polishing methods by measuring enamel surface roughness using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Brackets were bonded on 42 extracted human premolars using Transbond XT (Transbond group) or Fuji Ortho (Fuji group). After debracketing, adhesives were removed with a tungsten carbide bur, and surfaces were polished using Sof-Lex discs, a rotary brush with a prophylactic paste (Depural), or a prophylactic cup with two polishing pastes (n = 7 in each subgroup). Surface roughness (S_a, S_ku, S_q, and S_z) was measured using CLSM and compared before treatment (T₁), after debracketing and adhesive removal (T₂), and after polishing (T₃). The data were statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction. The time required for adhesive removal was measured and compared using a two-sample t-test. Surface roughness at T₂ increased compared to T₁, but the difference was significant only for the Fuji group (p < 0.01). The time required to remove Transbond XT (94.1 ± 6.8 s) was significantly higher compared to Fuji (72.1 ± 5.9 s, p < 0.0001). Polishing with Sof-Lex discs resulted in lower surface roughness compared to T₁ (p = 0.018). Using Depural and polishing pastes showed no significant difference in surface roughness compared to T₁, except for a significant decrease in S_a and S_q for Transbond (p = 0.043) and in S_ku for Fuji (p = 0.018) after polishing with Depural. In conclusion, the removal of Transbond took significantly longer, but there were fewer residues of composite resin on the enamel surface. Sof-Lex discs decreased enamel roughness, whereas enamel morphology and roughness were similar to the pre-treatment state after polishing with polishing pastes.

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.

Introducing and assessing the efficacy of a novel method to reduce enamel damage after orthodontic bracket removal using two herbal-based resin colouring agents: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

The differentiation of resin remnants from enamel is a critical factor to minimize enamel damage after bracket debonding. This study was conducted to produce, and ascertain the efficacy of two colouring agents in minimizing enamel loss, adhesive and bonding remnants, and surface roughness after debonding.

METHODS

Two dyes containing annatto (orange colour) and curcumin (yellow colour) were produced. Seventy-two maxillary premolars were divided into three groups. After bracket bonding and debonding, the adhesive remnant was removed with a fine diamond bur. In groups 1 and 2, the orange and yellow dyes were utilized during the removal process, respectively. In group 3 (control) adhesive was removed with no colouring agent. The buccolingual dimension of the teeth was measured at the occlusal, middle, and apical areas, before bonding and after clean-up. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) and bonding remnant index (BRI) scores were recorded and the surface roughness parameters were measured. Data were analysed by ANOVA, Tukey, and Fisher's exact tests (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Enamel loss was significantly lower in the groups cleaned by the use of colouring agents than that of the control group (P<0.05). No bonding agent was observed when the dyes were used, whereas 65% of teeth in the control group showed the remaining bonding material (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in ARI scores or surface roughness alterations among the study groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The two dyes produced in this study were effective in enhancing the visibility of residual resin materials and minimizing enamel loss during the clean-up process.

Combined Effects of Different Bracket Bonding Adhesives and Different Resin Removal Methods on Enamel Discoloration: A Preliminary Study

Introduction

This study aimed to investigate the effects of 3 orthodontic bracket adhesives and 3 resin removal methods on enamel discoloration.

Methods

Ninety metal orthodontic brackets were bonded to 90 intact human premolars, using 3 adhesives (total etch composite (Transbond), self-etch composite (OptiBond), and light-curedresin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI, Fuji); n = 3 × 30). Each "bracket bonding" group (n = 30) was randomly divided into three subgroups of 10 specimens each, each with a different method of remnant resin removal (using only tungsten carbide burs; using tungsten carbide burs plus Sof-Lex polisher discs; using tungsten carbide burs and Stainbuster burs; n = 3 × 30). After bracket debonding and coffee staining (at 37°C for one week), the color change parameters (Δa, Δb, ΔL, and ΔE) were measured and then analyzed statistically (α = 0.05).

Results

All 9 mean ΔE values were significantly greater than 3.7 and 1.0 (P values ≤0.002, t-test). The effects of composites and resin removal methods on the ΔE parameter (and their interaction) were significant (P values ≤0.008, two-way ANOVA). There were significant pairwise comparisons between total etch (Transbond) and each of the other composites (P values ≤0.008, Tukey). Nonetheless, the difference between self-etch (OptiBond) and RMGI (Fuji) was not significant (P=0.967). There were significant pairwise comparisons between the ΔE parameter of group "Bur + Stainbuster" and ΔE of each of the other methods (both P values ≤0.017).

Conclusions

All 9 pairs of adhesives and resin removal techniques will cause quite visible discolorations. Still, self-etch composites or RMGI might be recommended over total etch composites. Moreover, using Stainbuster burs together with tungsten carbide burs is recommended to reduce discoloration. However, the coloration caused by each composite type can change drastically given the following adhesive removal technique used.

Efficacy of Bracket Adhesive Remnant Removal by a Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique with a UV Light Handpiece: In Vitro Study

Objective

This study aims to analyze the fluorescence-aided identification technique efficacy on adhesive remnant removal from the enamel surface after orthodontic bracket debonding.

Materials and Methods

Forty-five extracted human upper central incisors were divided into 3 groups (n = 15) according to the kind of adhesive for bracket bonding and the use or absence of near UV light for remnant removal: BF/UV- fluorescent adhesive/UV light, BF/0-fluorescent adhesive/no UV light, and TB/0-nonfluorescent adhesive/no UV light. For all teeth, 100% of the adhesive used remained on the enamel surface after debonding. Fifteen dentists performed adhesive removal on the enamel surface using a carbide bur. The specimens were analyzed by a stereomicroscope, and the adhesive remnant percentage from each specimen was calculated. The time used by each dentist to perform the removal was recorded. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.

Results

Significant differences were observed among groups for adhesive remnant (p=0.0008) and for time (p=0.0001). The means of adhesive remnant were BF/UV (5.84), BF/0 (34.37), and TB/0 (37.02). The mean times necessary to remove adhesive were BF/UV (1 min 40 s), BF/0 (3 min 03 s), and TB/0 (2 min 46 s). For the BF/UV group, significantly lower values of adhesive remnants and time for debonding were found (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The fluorescence-aided identification technique significantly reduced the amount of adhesive remnant, and the time necessary to perform this clinical procedure.

Er,Cr:YSGG Laser as a Means of Orthodontic Adhesive Removal: Myth or Reality?

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effect of Er,Cr:YSGG laser with a tungsten carbide bur in orthodontic finishing on the enamel surface roughness and the heat generated in the pulp chamber. Methods: Before bonding, of 125 intact extracted premolar teeth, 15 teeth were randomly assigned to the control group. Of the remaining 110 bonded teeth, 50 were used to determine the laser parameters, and 60 were included in the main in vitro study. After debonding, the teeth were randomly distributed among four study groups (n = 15) for finishing with laser beams (Er,Cr:YSGG, Waterlase) with and without polishing with Sof-Lex discs, and finishing with a bur (tungsten carbide, Reliance) with and without polishing with Sof-Lex discs. The thermal changes were measured during finishing using a thermo-controller-coupled thermocouple placed in the pulp chamber. Enamel surface roughness was evaluated qualitatively under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and quantitatively under an atomic force microscope (AFM). Results: The thermal changes of the bur group were significantly higher than those in the laser group (p = 0.0001). Quantitatively, the surface roughness values of all the study groups were significantly higher than those of the control group (p < 0.05), with no significant difference between the study groups (p > 0.05). SEM analysis confirmed the AFM measurements. Conclusions: Er,Cr:YSGG can be recommended as an alternative for a carbide bur for adhesive agent removal after orthodontic debonding, considering its mild thermal effect on the pulp. Polishing with Sof-Lex discs did not significantly reduce the surface roughness, regardless of the finishing procedure.

Evaluation of Dental Surface after De-Bonding Orthodontic Bracket Bonded with a Novel Fluorescent Composite: In Vitro Comparative Study

The use of a new fluorescent composite can reduce some of the problems related to procedures of de-bonding orthodontic bracket (enamel damage, dentine lesions, and composite residuals). The aim of the presented study was to compare the effect of fluorescent and conventional non-fluorescent composite on dental surface and composite remnants by in vitro de-bonding tests. De-bonding of florescent composite (DFC) and the de-bonding of standard composite (DSC) were performed by operators on an in vitro sample of 48 teeth under UV light (360–370 nm min 20 mW/cm2). Modified ARI (Adhesive Remnant Index), scored under 5.0×/235 magnification, was used for evaluation of dental surface after the procedure, and the duration required for de-bonding was measured. Significant differences in ARI between the two groups were observed (Pearson two-tailed p = 0.006 1.4 ± 0.1 95% C.I.), and the average duration of de-bonding was 38 s (DFC) and 77 s (DSC) per tooth, respectively (Mann–Whitney test p = 0.015; 57.7 ± 19.9 95% C.I.). The use of fluorescent composite could significantly improve the quality of de-bonding by reducing the quantity of composite residuals and visible enamel damage, while reducing time needed for successful procedure performance.