OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to undertake a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of changes on enamel surfaces after debonding of brackets followed by finishing procedures, using a high-resolution three-dimensional optical profiler and to investigate the accuracy of the technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The labial surfaces of 36 extracted upper central incisors were examined. Before bonding, the enamel surfaces were subjected to profilometry, recording four amplitude parameters. Brackets were then bonded using two types of light-cured orthodontic adhesive: composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Finishing was performed by three different methods: pumice on a rubber cup, fine and ultrafine aluminum oxide discs, and microfine diamond cups followed by silicon carbide brushes. The samples were subsequently re-analyzed by profilometry. RESULTS: Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05) and a posteriori Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.0167) revealed a significant reduction of enamel roughness when diamond cups followed by silicon carbide brushes were used to finish surfaces that had remnants of resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive and when pumice was used to finish surfaces that had traces of composite resin. Enamel loss was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D optical profilometry technique was able to provide accurate qualitative and quantitative assessment of changes on the enamel surface after debonding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Morphological changes in the topography of dental surfaces, especially if related to enamel loss and roughness, are of considerable clinical importance. The quantitative evaluation method used herein enables a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of orthodontic bonding on teeth.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to undertake a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of changes on enamel surfaces after debonding of brackets followed by finishing procedures, using a high-resolution three-dimensional optical profiler and to investigate the accuracy of the technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The labial surfaces of 36 extracted upper central incisors were examined. Before bonding, the enamel surfaces were subjected to profilometry, recording four amplitude parameters. Brackets were then bonded using two types of light-cured orthodontic adhesive: composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Finishing was performed by three different methods: pumice on a rubber cup, fine and ultrafine aluminum oxide discs, and microfine diamond cups followed by silicon carbide brushes. The samples were subsequently re-analyzed by profilometry. RESULTS: Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05) and a posteriori Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.0167) revealed a significant reduction of enamel roughness when diamond cups followed by silicon carbide brushes were used to finish surfaces that had remnants of resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive and when pumice was used to finish surfaces that had traces of composite resin. Enamel loss was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D optical profilometry technique was able to provide accurate qualitative and quantitative assessment of changes on the enamel surface after debonding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Morphological changes in the topography of dental surfaces, especially if related to enamel loss and roughness, are of considerable clinical importance. The quantitative evaluation method used herein enables a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of orthodontic bonding on teeth.
Authors: Valerie A David; Robert N Staley; Harold F Bigelow; Jane R Jakobsen Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: José Tarcísio Lima Ferreira; Maria Cristina Borsatto; Maria Conceição Pereira Saraiva; Mírian Aiko Nakane Matsumoto; Carolina Paes Torres; Fabio Lourenço Romano Journal: Turk J Orthod Date: 2020-03-01
Authors: Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska; Robert Tomkowski; Katarzyna Tandecka; Piotr Stepien; Tomasz Szatkiewicz; Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak; Katarzyna Grocholewicz Journal: PeerJ Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska; Katarzyna Tandecka; Tomasz Szatkiewicz; Piotr Stępień; Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak; Katarzyna Grocholewicz Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho; Martina Triduo; Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero; Clara Guinot Barona; Alberto Albaladejo Martínez Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-04-12 Impact factor: 4.241