Literature DB >> 31565687

Comparison of the Effects of Various Methods Used to Remove Adhesive from Tooth Surfaces on Surface Roughness and Temperature Changes in the Pulp Chamber.

Mihri Amasyalı1, Fidan Alakuş Sabuncuoğlu2, Şeyda Ersahan2, Elif Aybala Oktay3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of three methods of removing adhesive on enamel surface roughness and dental pulp temperature.
METHODS: Ninety human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into three groups (n=30) according to the type of adhesive clean-up procedure: aluminum oxide-based burs, erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and tungsten carbide bur. The surface roughness of enamel was measured using a non-contact optical profilometer. After the first readings of surface roughness were measured (T1), orthodontic brackets were attached to the enamel surface with composite. The brackets on the teeth were debonded using bracket removal pliers. The residue of adhesive was eliminated from the enamel surface of the teeth by different procedures in each group. While removing adhesive from the tooth surface, the intrapulpal temperature rise was simultaneously measured using a thermocouple. One-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD tests were used to analyze data with a significance level set at 0.05.
RESULTS: The highest roughness average (Ra) values were observed for the Er:YAG laser group, with a significant difference with the aluminum oxide bur group and tungsten carbide bur group (p<0.001). Ra values for the aluminum oxide bur group were significantly lower than those for the other groups (p<0.001). Comparing the thermal changes in each group showed a significant decrease in the Er:YAG laser group, but a significant increase in two other groups.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, one-step finisher and polisher bur created the smoothest enamel surface, whereas Er:YAG laser the roughest. Tungsten carbide and aluminum oxide-based burs generated more heat than Er:YAG laser. © Copyright 2019 by Turkish Orthodontic Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pulp chamber; remove adhesive; temperature

Year:  2019        PMID: 31565687      PMCID: PMC6756566          DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Orthod        ISSN: 2148-9505


  31 in total

1.  Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing.

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

2.  Influence of various polishing methods on pulp temperature : an in vitro study.

Authors:  S Mank; M Steineck; L Brauchli
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with newly developed antibacterial self-etch adhesive.

Authors:  Neslihan Eminkahyagil; Yonca Korkmaz; Saadet Gokalp; Meserret Baseren
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  ER: YAG laser for composite removal after bracket debonding: a qualitative SEM analysis.

Authors:  H C Almeida; M Vedovello Filho; S A S Vedovello; A A A Young; G O Ramirez-Yañez
Journal:  Int J Orthod Milwaukee       Date:  2009

5.  Surface tridimensional topography analysis of materials and finishing procedures after resinous infiltration of subsurface bovine enamel lesions.

Authors:  Jan Mueller; Fan Yang; Konrad Neumann; Andrej M Kielbassa
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.677

6.  Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro.

Authors:  Sacha Ryf; Simon Flury; Senthamaraiselvi Palaniappan; Adrian Lussi; Bart van Meerbeek; Brigitte Zimmerli
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  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

8.  Effect of orthodontic debonding and residual adhesive removal on 3D enamel microroughness.

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

9.  Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Xiao-Chuan Fan; Li Chen; Xiao-Feng Huang
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 2.757

10.  Enamel Surface Evaluation after Removal of Orthodontic Composite Remnants by Intraoral Sandblasting Technique and Carbide Bur Technique: A Three-Dimensional Surface Profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopic Study.

Authors:  Amol C Mhatre; Arundhati P Tandur; Sumitra S Reddy; B C Karunakara; H Baswaraj
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2015
View more
  1 in total

1.  Color stability and surface roughness of ormocer- versus methacrylate-based single shade composite in anterior restoration.

Authors:  Maha M Ebaya; Ashraf I Ali; Huda Abed El-Haliem; Salah Hasab Mahmoud
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 3.747

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.