INTRODUCTION: At orthodontic treatment completion, knowledge about the effects of adhesive remnant removal on enamel is paramount. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the effect of different adhesive remnant removal methods on enamel topography (ESI) and surface roughness (Ra) after bracket debonding and polishing. METHODS: A total of 50 human premolars were selected and divided into five groups according to the method used for adhesive remnant removal: high speed tungsten carbide bur (TCB), Sof-Lex discs (SL), adhesive removing plier (PL), ultrasound (US) and Fiberglass burs (FB). Metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT, stored at 37°C for 24 hours before debonding with adhesive removing plier. Subsequently, removal methods were carried out followed by polishing with pumice paste. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted with pre-bonding, post-debonding and post-polishing analyses. Results were submitted to statistical analysis with F test (ANOVA) and Tukey's (Ra) as well as with Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni tests (ESI) (P < 0.05). RESULTS: US Ra and ESI were significantly greater than TCB, SL, PL and FB. Polishing minimized Ra and ESI in the SL and FB groups. CONCLUSION: Adhesive remnant removal with SL and FB associated with polishing are recommended due to causing little damage to the enamel.
INTRODUCTION: At orthodontic treatment completion, knowledge about the effects of adhesive remnant removal on enamel is paramount. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the effect of different adhesive remnant removal methods on enamel topography (ESI) and surface roughness (Ra) after bracket debonding and polishing. METHODS: A total of 50 human premolars were selected and divided into five groups according to the method used for adhesive remnant removal: high speed tungsten carbide bur (TCB), Sof-Lex discs (SL), adhesive removing plier (PL), ultrasound (US) and Fiberglass burs (FB). Metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT, stored at 37°C for 24 hours before debonding with adhesive removing plier. Subsequently, removal methods were carried out followed by polishing with pumice paste. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted with pre-bonding, post-debonding and post-polishing analyses. Results were submitted to statistical analysis with F test (ANOVA) and Tukey's (Ra) as well as with Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni tests (ESI) (P < 0.05). RESULTS: US Ra and ESI were significantly greater than TCB, SL, PL and FB. Polishing minimized Ra and ESI in the SL and FB groups. CONCLUSION: Adhesive remnant removal with SL and FB associated with polishing are recommended due to causing little damage to the enamel.
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: Michael Schauseil; Sonja Blöcher; Andreas Hellak; Matthias J Roggendorf; Steffen Stein; Heike Korbmacher-Steiner Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 2.151