Brian J Webb1, Jacob Koch2, Joseph L Hagan3, Richard W Ballard4, Paul C Armbruster4. 1. a Private Practice of Orthodontics , 4703 Hixson Pike, Hixson , TN , 37343 , USA. 2. b Private Practice of Orthodontics , 55 Towler Road, Lawrenceville , GA , 30046 , USA. 3. c Texas Children's Hospital , 1102 Bates Street, Houston , TX , 77030 , USA. 4. d Department of Orthodontics , LSUHSC School of Dentistry , 1100 Florida Ave, New Orleans , LA , 70119 , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with commonly used methods. METHODS: Part I: a survey was sent to active members of the American Association of Orthodontists to determine popular bonding, debonding, and polishing protocols. Part II: brackets were bonded to the buccal surface of 30 extracted human premolar teeth. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with 12-, 16-, and 20-fluted titanium carbide burs as based upon the survey results. The teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness. Part III: the teeth were further polished using a Reliance Renew polishing point or a prophy cup with pumice and rescanned for surface roughness. RESULTS: Part I: the majority of respondents used a generic bracket-removing plier to remove fixed appliances (53%) and a high-speed handpiece for adhesive removal (85%). The most popular bur was a 12-fluted carbide bur without water spray. The majority of respondents used pumice paste and/or Reliance Renew points after adhesive removal. Part II: there was a significant difference in enamel surface roughness when 12-, 16-, and 20-fluted carbide burs were compared via surface profilometry. Part III: further polishing with a Reliance Renew point or a prophy cup and pumice did not provide a significantly smoother surface. CONCLUSIONS: The results show large variation in debonding and polishing techniques. Creating a smooth enamel surface is equally possible with 12- or 20-fluted carbide burs. Further polishing with pumice and prophy cup or Renew point does not provide an enamel smoother surface.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with commonly used methods. METHODS: Part I: a survey was sent to active members of the American Association of Orthodontists to determine popular bonding, debonding, and polishing protocols. Part II: brackets were bonded to the buccal surface of 30 extracted human premolar teeth. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with 12-, 16-, and 20-fluted titanium carbide burs as based upon the survey results. The teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness. Part III: the teeth were further polished using a Reliance Renew polishing point or a prophy cup with pumice and rescanned for surface roughness. RESULTS: Part I: the majority of respondents used a generic bracket-removing plier to remove fixed appliances (53%) and a high-speed handpiece for adhesive removal (85%). The most popular bur was a 12-fluted carbide bur without water spray. The majority of respondents used pumice paste and/or Reliance Renew points after adhesive removal. Part II: there was a significant difference in enamel surface roughness when 12-, 16-, and 20-fluted carbide burs were compared via surface profilometry. Part III: further polishing with a Reliance Renew point or a prophy cup and pumice did not provide a significantly smoother surface. CONCLUSIONS: The results show large variation in debonding and polishing techniques. Creating a smooth enamel surface is equally possible with 12- or 20-fluted carbide burs. Further polishing with pumice and prophy cup or Renew point does not provide an enamel smoother surface.
Authors: Oliver Stadler; Christian Dettwiler; Christian Meller; Michel Dalstra; Carlalberta Verna; Thomas Connert Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 2.079
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: Christian Graetz; Kristina Schoepke; Johanna Rabe; Susanne Schorr; Antje Geiken; David Christofzik; Thomas Rinder; Christof E Dörfer; Sonja Sälzer Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.757