Literature DB >> 20197174

Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment.

Törün Ozer1, Güvenç Başaran, Jalen Devecioğlu Kama.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: After fixed appliance treatment, one concern is to restore the enamel surface as closely to its original state as possible. A variety of cleanup processes are available, but all are time-consuming and carry some risk of enamel damage. The purpose of this study was to examine tooth surfaces restored with different cleanup protocols.
METHODS: Ninety-nine premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were used. The 2 materials tested were Sof-Lex disks (3 M ESPE AG, Seefeld, Germany) and fiberglass burs (Stain Buster, Carbotech, Ganges, France). These were used alone and in combination with high- and low-speed handpieces, with which they were also compared. Eight groups were ultimately tested. All groups were compared with intact enamel, which served as the control group. From each group, 10 samples were examined with profilometry and 1 with scanning electron microscopy. Adhesive remnant index scores were recorded to ensure equal distributions for the groups. The time required for the cleanup processes and profilometry test results were also recorded.
RESULTS: The fastest procedure was performed with high-speed handpieces, followed by low-speed handpieces. Sof-Lex disks and fiberglass burs required more time than carbide burs but did not result in significantly longer times for the cleanup procedure when combined with tungsten carbide-driven low- or high-speed handpieces or when used alone with low-speed handpieces. Although Sof-Lex disks were the most successful for restoring the enamel, it was not necessary to restore the enamel to its original surface condition. Generally, all enamel surface-roughness parameters were increased when compared with the values of intact enamel. The average roughness and maximum roughness depth measurements with Sof-Lex disks were statistically similar to measurements of intact enamel.
CONCLUSIONS: No cleanup procedure used in this study restored the enamel to its original roughness. The most successful was Sof-Lex disks, which restored the enamel closer to its original roughness. 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20197174     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  21 in total

1.  The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding.

Authors:  Denis F Baumann; Lorenz Brauchli; Hubertus van Waes
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  An in vitro comparison of ultraviolet versus white light in the detection of adhesive remnants during orthodontic debonding.

Authors:  Connie Lai; Peter J Bush; Stephen Warunek; David A Covell; Thikriat Al-Jewair
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Effect of Various Finishing Procedures on the Reflectivity (Shine) of Tooth Enamel - An In-vitro Study.

Authors:  Harshal Ashok Patil; Shrikant Shrinivas Chitko; Veerendra Virupaxappa Kerudi; Amit Ratanlal Maheshwari; Neeraj Suresh Patil; Pawankumar Dnyandeo Tekale; Ketan Ashorao Gore; Amit Ashok Zope
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-08-01

4.  Evaluation of a Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT) to assist clean-up after orthodontic bracket debonding.

Authors:  Oliver Stadler; Christian Dettwiler; Christian Meller; Michel Dalstra; Carlalberta Verna; Thomas Connert
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 5.  Role of Orthodontics in Forensic Odontology- A Social Responsibility.

Authors:  Giridhar Reddy; Vinay P Reddy; Meenakshi Sharma; Monika Aggarwal
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-04-01

6.  Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding.

Authors:  Matteo Zanarini; Antonio Gracco; Monica Lattuca; Silvia Marchionni; Maria Rosaria Gatto; Giulio Alessandri Bonetti
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods.

Authors:  Michele Machado Vidor; Rafael Perdomo Felix; Ernani Menezes Marchioro; Luciane Hahn
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr

8.  Effects of removing adhesive from tooth surfaces by Er:YAG laser and a composite bur on enamel surface roughnessand pulp chamber temperature.

Authors:  Sogra Yassaei; Hossein Aghili; Neda Joshan
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2015 May-Jun

9.  Effect of enamel laser irradiation at different pulse settings on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

Authors:  Serkan Sağır; Aslıhan Usumez; Ebru Ademci; Serdar Usumez
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques.

Authors:  Farzaneh Ahrari; Majid Akbari; Javad Akbari; Ghahraman Dabiri
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2013-01-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.