Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the enamel surface quality after interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) was performed with different systems and to study the relation between acid penetration depth and enamel surface quality as well as the importance of remineralization.
METHODS: Sixty-five extracted teeth were randomly allocated to five experimental groups: untreated control, manual with New Metal Strips, mechanical with oscillating segment (OS) discs, Safe-Tipped Bur Kit, and the Ortho-Strip, followed by 30 s of polishing with the Softflex system and the Compo-system after treating the tooth with OS discs. Mesial surfaces were demineralized for 24 h and distal surfaces were subjected to interchanging demineralization and remineralization cycles of 24 h each for 18 days. The analysis was carried out by profilometry, scanning electron microscopy, and polarization microscopy.
RESULTS: After IPR and polishing, enamel roughness was reduced for all systems tested except for the Essix Safe-Tipped Bur Kit. Subsequent demineralization increased enamel roughness in all groups except controls beyond the original level prior to IPR except for IPR with New Metal Strips or Ortho-Strips and subsequent polishing. Cyclic demineralization and remineralization for 18 days yielded a reduction in acid penetration depth and an increase in surface smoothness, which correlated with each other only for controls and treatment with New Metal Strips or Ortho-Strips.
CONCLUSIONS: Manual IPR, using New Metal Strips and, even more, the oscillating IPR system Ortho-Strips, yielded smoother interproximal enamel surfaces and less acid penetration depth than the IPR systems with OS discs and the Safe-Tipped Bur Kit after polishing and 18 days of cyclic demineralization and remineralization. Irrespective of the IPR procedure, proper remineralization of IPR-treated surfaces is advisable to reduce caries susceptibility.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes

Introduction

In recent years, orthodontists have increasingly focused their interest on non-extraction therapy to resolve crowding and loss of space within the dental arch. Interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) is a frequently used alternative to extraction therapy to gain space and to treat moderate dental crowding [1].

Apart from the benefits of IPR in resolving dental crowding, it is still an invasive technique, which produces irreversible loss of hard tooth structures [2]. Different reports exist in the literature regarding the maximum amount of enamel reduction admissible without inducing permanent damage to the teeth and the oral system. Because of the reduced enamel thickness of teeth in the anterior mandibular region, the use of IPR on lower incisors is severely limited [3]. Thus it is generally recommended that clinicians assess enamel thickness radiographically before extensive IPR, since individual variation is known to exist [4].

Since the beginning of the clinical application of the IPR procedure, a potential increase in plaque accumulation and caries susceptibility of the abraded enamel surfaces after IPR has been postulated [5,6]. Increased surface roughness of enamel after performing IPR could promote plaque accumulation and enamel demineralization by acids produced by cariogenic bacteria in the forming biofilm [7,8]. The application of fluoride varnishes after IPR has been recommended to alleviate this problem [9], but has been shown to be sometimes ineffective, in particular, if application frequency is too low [10]. Thus the aim of our study was to assess and compare the enamel surface quality after IPR was performed with four different commercially available systems and to study the relationship between acid penetration depth and enamel surface quality as well as the importance of remineralization. If acid penetration depth is directly related to enamel surface quality, the IPR systems and techniques identified that produce the smoothest enamel surface could have a clinical advantage in this regard.

Materials and methods

Specimens and preparatory measures

The protocol for the collection of teeth for this in vitro study was approved by the ethics committee of Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany (No. 116/2013). Sixty-five extracted, caries-free, and intact human lower front teeth were included in this study. The soft tissues and the calculus were removed by using a toothbrush, toothpaste, and, if required, a polishing handpiece, rubber cup/brush, fluoride-free polishing paste, and a scaler. First, a visual and radiological analysis for the presence of enamel decalcification and caries, as well as an examination of the soundness of the interproximal surfaces of each tooth, was conducted.

A digital X-ray unit (Heliodent DS Sidexis, D3495 XIOX Plus Wall Module, Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) with a large X-ray sensor fixed within a silicone mold (Alphsil Putty Soft, Müller-Omicron-Dental, Germany) was used. The extracted and caries-free teeth were stored throughout in physiological NaCl solution containing 0.1% thymol.

Interproximal enamel reduction

The 65 teeth were randomly distributed to five experimental groups of 13 specimens each: a reference group not treated by IPR as control and four experimental IPR groups. Table 1 shows three mechanical systems [Komet ASR-Set (KAS), Safe-Tipped Bur (STB) Kit, Intensiv Ortho-Strip-System (IOS)] and one manual system, the GC New Metal Strips (GMS), which were used for IPR and compared in this study. To reproduce the physiological movement of teeth during the grinding, the extracted teeth were mounted using silicon material (Optosil; Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany), and interproximal contacts were reestablished. The IPR was conducted according to the respective manufacturers’ recommendations under water-cooling. IPR of 0.2 mm was performed at both interproximal surfaces of each tooth, followed by re-contouring to produce an adequate interproximal shape and polishing with the Softflex system (3M, St. Paul, MN) and the Komet ASR-Set (KAS) CompoClips for 30 seconds to mitigate roughness. If necessary, teeth were separated by using interdental wedges.

Table 1

Listing of tested IPR systems.

	IPR system	code	Manufacturer	Procedure/ handpiece	Manufacturer
1	New Metal Strips	GMS	GC, Tokyo, Japan	Manual	N.A.
2	OS-discs (ASR set)	KAS	Komet, Lemgo, Germany	Mechanical/Komet OS 30	Komet, Lemgo, Germany
3	Ortho-Strip system	IOS	Intensiv Dental, Montagnola, Switzerland	Mechanical/Intensiv Swingle WG-69 LT	W&H, Laufen/Obb. Germany
4	Safe-Tipped Bur Kit	STB	Raintree Essix, LA, USA	Mechanical/Kavo, Intracompact 25LHC	Kavo, Biberbach, Germany

Demineralization and remineralization procedure

Interproximal areas were checked under a light microscope (Leica WILD M3Z, Wetzlar, Germany) and the remaining enamel surface was covered in wax. Mesial interproximal tooth surfaces were designated for only 24 hours (h) of demineralization at 37°C, whereas distal tooth surfaces underwent demineralization and remineralization cycles interchanging every 24 hours for 18 days at 37°C. This was achieved by inserting the teeth into a respective demineralization (pH 4.67–4.73) or remineralization solution (pH 6.9–7.0). The composition of the demineralization solution was: 1.6 g (1.6%) hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), 33 ml distilled water, 15 ml KCl (1 mol/l), 33 ml sodium acetate (0.2 mol/l), 15 ml acetic acid (0.2 mol/l), 1 ml KH2PO4 (90 mmol/l), and 1 ml CaCl2 (150 mmol/l). The remineralization solution comprised 83 ml of distilled water, 15 ml KCl (1 mol/l), 1 ml KH2PO4 (90 mmol/l), and 1 ml CaCl2 (150 mmol).

The experiment started with the demineralization process for 24 h, after which the mesial tooth surfaces were covered in wax to protect them from further demineralization and remineralization. Teeth were rinsed during each interim and solution change with bidistilled water to avoid contamination between solutions. Temperature and pH value were checked on a regular basis.

Profilometry

Profilometry was used to assess surface roughness at each interproximal area of interest before and after IPR, after demineralization for 24 h, and after the demineralization/remineralization cycles lasting for 18 days. All teeth were analyzed by an optical profilometer (InfiniteFocus, G3, Alicona Imaging GmbH, Graz, Austria). For profilometry analysis, teeth were temporarily demounted from their silicon mold and then reinserted in their original position for the continuation of the experiments. Image processing was realized with the corresponding software (Alicona Imaging GmbH, Graz, Austria). The surfaces were magnified 50 times in the area of the examination window and analyzed by line measurements (Ra) and area measurements (asfc). The computer analysis of the surface characteristics permitted a numeric and graphical description of each tooth surface, quantifying enamel roughness in average μm on each surface in the range of a section of the examination windows (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Profilometry after IPR with the Ortho-Strip system.

The legend shows the position of the specimen according to a horizontal layer. The quadrangle shows the measured area.

Scanning electron microscopy

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Zeiss Sigma VP, Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) at zoom factors of 500, 750, and 1.000 was used to compare interproximal enamel surface roughness of randomly chosen teeth, visually and qualitatively, of each group before and after IPR, after demineralization for 24 h, and after the demineralization/remineralization cycles lasting for 18 days, and to corroborate the quantitative profilometry results. The specimens were prepared according to standard operating procedures and sputtered with gold-palladium. SEM analysis was carried out at 20 kV, using a secondary electron detector.

Polarization microscopy

Before histological examination by polarization microscopy, the teeth were prepared by separating the roots with a diamond disc (Horico, Berlin, Germany) and the crowns were embedded in methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based resin (Technovit, Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany). They then went through a dewatering process comprising 24 h of 70% isopropanol, 24 h 90% isopropanol, 2 x 24 h isopropanol, and 3x daily 5–10 min vacuum, 2 x 48 h xylene, and 3x daily 5–10 min vacuum and, finally, four days in infiltration solution and 3x daily 5–10 min vacuum. Samples were then fixed on a 7 mm-thick base with superglue. The polymerization of Technovit in the powder (polymer) liquid (monomer) technique was carried out as follows: 5 min light vacuum with the water jet pump, 10 min at 4°C in a desiccator, 4 days at –17°C under oxygen exclusion, 4 h at 4°C, and 1 day at room temperature. With a sawmill microtome (Leica microtom SP 1600, Wetzlar, Germany), three grinding samples per tooth (80–90 μm) were cut off from the center after checking the appropriate hardness of the samples and then visualized under the polarization microscope (Leica, Wetzlar, Germany) and evaluated with the appropriate software application suite.

Depth of acid penetration (μm) was measured quantitatively at 10 measuring points at both the mesial and the distal surface of each grinding sample, with the Leica software (Leica Application Suite, version 4.0.0); spotted from two sections; and photographically documented. Thus, 60 measurements per tooth (30 mesial/30 distal) were documented.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM® SPSS® Statistics 23 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) application. A descriptive-exploratory data analysis was performed to assess the assumptions of parametric testing (normality, homogeneity of variance). The arithmetic mean (M) with standard deviation (SD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean were calculated as descriptive statistics. The respective changes of enamel roughness directly after IPR, after another 24 h of demineralization or 18 days of cyclic demineralization and remineralization as well as acid penetration depth, were compared between groups by Kruskal-Wallis H tests. One-sample t-tests versus 0 (bootstrapped, bias-corrected, and accelerated, 10.000 samples) were used to determine the significance of enamel roughness changes. Possible correlations between enamel surface roughness and acid penetration depth were determined by means of a Spearman correlation. Significance was assumed at p ≤0.05.

Results

Table 2 shows the results of the profilometry analysis after IPR and polishing. The control group was used as a reference. The various IPR systems differed significantly in terms of their effect on enamel surface roughness after polishing (p = 0.004). GMS (p = 0.008), KAS (p = 0.01), and IOS (p = 0.019) each resulted in a significant reduction in enamel surface roughness after polishing (Table 2), whereas the STB (p = 0.109) caused a non-significant increase in surface roughness after polishing (no change in the control group without IPR).

Table 2

Enamel surface roughness at the beginning (after tooth-cleaning) and after IPR (n = 26 per group, pooled mesial and distal tooth surfaces of the 13 teeth per group).

	Mesial and distal tooth surfaces (n = 26 per group)
Enamel surface roughness [μm]	After tooth-cleaning (start) M±SD [95% CI]	Change Δ by IPR+polishing M±SD [95% CI] p (significance Δ >0)	After IPR+polishing M±SD [95% CI]
New Metal Strips (GMS)	27.3 ±16.7 [20.6/34.0]	-12.6 ±17.8 [-19.8/-5.4] p = 0.008*	14.8 ±10.4 [10.6/1.0]
OS-discs (KAS)	21.0 ±12.3 [16.0/25.9]	-6.5 ±11.3 [-11.1/-1.9] p = 0.01**	14.4 ±6.0 [12.0/16.9]
Ortho-Strips (IOS)	33.8 ±19.5 [25.9/4.,7]	-8.9 ±18.0 [-16.1/-1.6] p = 0.019*	24.9 ±15.6 [18.6/31.2]
Safe-Tipped Bur Kit (STB)	23.5 ±12.9 [18.3/28.7]	+10.5 ±29.9 [-1.6/22.6] p = 0.109	34.0 ±24.3 [24.2/43.8]
Control group	28.0 ±16.4 [20.7/35.3]	0.0 ±0.0 [0.0/0.0] p = 1.000	28.0 ±16.4 [20.7/35.3]
		H(4) = 15.261 p = 0.004**

M = arithmetic mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval of the mean; p = statistical significance; p (Δ >0) one-sample t-test (bootstrapped, bias-corrected, and accelerated, 10.000 samples) to test significant differences of change Δ from 0; H (df) = test statistic (degrees of freedom) of Kruskal-Wallis H test, comparing changes Δ between groups

After demineralization/remineralization cycles

After 24 h of demineralization, it was found that the surface roughness of enamel surfaces treated with KAS (p = 0.028) and IOS (p = 0.012) increased significantly compared to directly after IPR and polishing, whereas for GMS (p = 0.052) and STB (p = 0.225), this increase was not significant (Table 3). In the control group without IPR, demineralization induced a small, non-significant decrease in surface roughness. Overall, however, no significant differences between experimental groups were found regarding surface roughness after demineralization, compared to after IPR and polishing (p = 0.072). Compared to initial surface roughness, however, the effects of demineralization differed for the various IPR systems tested (p = 0.002, Table 3). KAS (p = 0.033) and STB (p = 0.001) produced significantly higher enamel roughness after demineralization, whereas approximately initial roughness values were reached for the other systems after demineralization (Table 3).

Table 3

Enamel surface roughness after 24 h of demineralization at 37°C (n = 13, mesial tooth surfaces) or following interchanging demineralization and remineralization cycles of 24 h for 18 days at 37°C (n = 13, distal tooth surfaces).

	Mesial tooth surface (n = 13 per group, only 24 h of demineralization at 37°C)			Distal surface (n = 13 per group, interchanging de- and remineralization cycles of 24 h for 18 days at 37°C)
Enamel surface roughness [μm]	Change Δ demin. (to IPR+polish.) M±SD [95% CI] p (Δ > 0)	After demin. (after IPR) M±SD [95% CI]	Change Δ demin. (to start) M±SD [95% CI] p (Δ > 0)	Change Δ demin./remin. (to IPR+polish.) M±SD [95% CI] p (Δ > 0)	After demin./ remin. (after IPR) M±SD [95% CI]	Change Δ demin./remin (to start) M±SD [95% CI] p (Δ > 0)
New Metal Strips (GMS)	+9.1 ±14.4 [0.0/18.3] p = 0.052	22.9 ±10.2 [16.4/29.4]	-0.6 ±17.4 [-11.6/10.5] p = 0.901	+15.7 ±19.1 [3.6/27.8] p = 0.018*	31.5 ±14.8 [22.1/40.9]	-0.5 ±21.7 [-14.3/13.3] p = 0.942
OS-discs (KAS)	+17.1 ±19.7 [4.6/29.6] p = 0.028*	30.6 ±17.1 [19.7/41.4]	+13.7 ±18.2 [2.1/25.3] p = 0.033*	+14.2 ±9.0 [8.5/19.9] p = 0.001***	30.2 ±11.7 [22.7/37.6]	+4.2 ±18.4 [-7.5/15.9] p = 0.441
Ortho-Strips (IOS)	+12.3 ±13.9 [3.5/21.1] p = 0.012*	28.0 ±11.8 [20.5/35.6]	+0.3 ±12.1 [-7.4/7.9] p = 0.949	-10.0 ±20.3 [-22.9/3.0] p = 0.126	25.4 ±11.0 [18.4/32.4]	-15.1 ±27.2 [-32.4/2.1] p = 0.082
Safe-Tipped Bur Kit (STB)	+9.6 ±20.7 [-3.6/22.7] p = 0.225	39.9 ±11.3 [32.8/47.1]	+21.9 ±15.0 [12.4/31.4] p = 0.001***	+9.8 ±21.6 [-3.9/23.5] p = 0.147	41.0 ±15.3 [31.3/50.8]	+10.8 ±21.4 [-2.8/24.4] p = 0.114
Control group	-6.5±21.1 [-20.7/7.7] p = 0.326	20.3 ±6.1 [16.4/24.2]	-6.5 ±21.1 [-20.7/7.7] p = 0.334	-4.9 ±20.8 [-18.9/9.1] p = 0.461	23.1 ±10.8 [16.2/29.9]	-4.9 ±20.8 [-18.9/9.1] p = 0.452
	H(4) = 8.593 p = 0.072		H(4) = 16.599 p = 0.002**	H(4) = 16.494 p = 0.002**		H(4) = 7.635 p = 0.106

M = arithmetic mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval of the mean; p = statistical significance; p (Δ >0) one sample t-test (bootstrapped, bias-corrected, and accelerated, 10.000 samples) to test significant differences of change Δ from 0; H (df) = test statistic (degrees of freedom) of Kruskal-Wallis H test, comparing changes Δ between groups

After 18 days of interchanging 24 h demineralization and remineralization cycles, significant differences in surface roughness were observed across all experimental groups (p = 0.002). GMS (p = 0.018) and KAS (p = 0.001) were associated with significantly increased enamel roughness compared to the situation directly after IPR and polishing, whereas this increase was present but not significant for the STB (p = 0.147, Table 3) group. In the control group without IPR and the Ortho-Strips group (IOS), a non-significant decrease in surface roughness compared to directly after IPR and polishing could be observed. Compared to initial surface roughness, the different IPR systems tested did not show significant differences in enamel roughness after 18 days of cyclic demineralization and remineralization (p = 0.106, Table 3).

The visual-qualitative assessment of enamel surface roughness based on SEM images of interproximal areas of randomly chosen teeth per group corroborated to a high degree with the results of the profilometry analysis (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Scanning electron microscopic images of enamel surfaces of randomly selected specimens of each experimental group.

(a) GMS after IPR, (b) GMS after demineralization, (c) GMS, (d) KAS after IPR, (e) KAS after demineralization, (f) KAS after demineralization and remineralization, (g) IOS after IPR, (h) IOS after demineralization, (i) IOS after demineralization and remineralization, (j) STB after IPR, (k) STB after demineralization, (l) STB after demineralization and remineralization, (m) control group untreated, (n) control group after demineralization, (o) control group after demineralization and remineralization.

The average depth of acid penetration after the 24 h demineralization treatment amounts to 57.2–75.9 μm and, after 18 days of cyclic demineralization and remineralization, to 50.9–76.6 μm (Figs 3 and 4). Conducting an IPR or the type of IPR system used had no significant effect on acid penetration depth into interproximal enamel after demineralization: H (4) = 8.360; p = 0.079. Significant differences were observed after cyclic demineralization and remineralization, as both the enamel surfaces treated with KAS and STB showed a significantly higher acid penetration depth: H(4) = 9.935; p = 0.042.

Fig 3

Depth of acid penetration into interproximal enamel after 24 h of demineralization.

Thirty-seven degrees Celsius, mesial tooth surfaces and interchanging 24 h cycles of demineralization and remineralization for 18 days (distal tooth surfaces) after IPR treatment with the respective IPR systems and untreated controls.

Fig 4

Polarization microscope images showing acid penetration into interproximal enamel of randomly selected specimens of each experimental group.

(a) GMS after demineralization, (b) GMS after demineralization and remineralization, (c) KAS after demineralization, (d) KAS after demineralization and remineralization, (e) IOS after demineralization, (f) IOS after demineralization and remineralization, (g) STB after demineralization, (h) STB after demineralization and remineralization, (i) control group after demineralization, (j) control group after demineralization and remineralization.

Enamel surface roughness after IPR did not correlate significantly with acid penetration depth after either subsequent demineralization (24 h, p = 0.151, p = 0.284) or cyclic demineralization and remineralization (18 days, p = 0.061, p = 0.67). In addition, no significant correlation was found between surface roughness and acid penetration depth after demineralization (24 h, p = –0.154, p = 0.29), whereas after cyclic demineralization and remineralization, enamel surface roughness correlated significantly, but to a minor degree, with acid penetration depth (p = 0.286, p = 0.047).

Discussion

Rough enamel surfaces cause increased plaque formation [5-11]. Smooth surfaces reduce bacterial adhesion [12,13]. It is clinically established that interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) followed by polishing does not cause increased enamel roughness and that the genesis of caries requires the production of acids demineralizing enamel as the main factor for tooth decay [14-16].

The profilometry evaluation of enamel surface roughness revealed that after polishing surfaces that had been treated with IPR systems, these possessed a significantly greater smoothness than untreated enamel. These results are in accordance with other studies [17-19]. Teeth treated by GMS, KAS, and IOS systems showed a significant reduction of surface roughness, whereas this was not the case for the STB system, which produced higher roughness values after polishing than before IPR, which coincides with the divergent statements by Arman et al. [20], Danesh et al. [17], and Radlanski et al. [5]. The profilometry as well as the SEM results revealed that the polishing effect and the influence of physiological remineralization of dental tissues are important to avoid plaque retention. The present study also reveals some limitations. Factors such as missing bacterial influence and the age of the examined teeth could not be considered in this study [21].

Because of its high resolution, SEM is a good procedure to evaluate images visually [18]. Demineralized surfaces in this study showed height differences of the enamel, which represented a rough surface. When looking at the extent of demineralization after 24 h, all four tested IPR systems produced an increase in enamel surface roughness by demineralization despite the polishing performed after IPR. Interestingly, compared to the initial enamel roughness before IPR, the GMS and IOS systems yielded comparable roughness values after demineralization, indicating that these systems have an advantage in this respect over the STB and KAS systems, presumably because they were able to smooth the enamel surface in combination with the polishing performed to such an extent that the increase of roughness during demineralization simply restored the original roughness of the interproximal enamel.

These effects were even more evident after 18 days of cyclic demineralization and remineralization. Whereas an increase in surface roughness was also evident after 18 days in nearly all experimental groups treated with IPR and polishing, this was not the case for the IOS system. Interproximal enamel surfaces treated by the GMS and IOS systems and polishing had either comparable or even smoother enamel surfaces in relation to the initial surface roughness before IPR and were also associated with significantly lower depths of acid penetration than the KAS and STB systems were. Finally, our results show a significant correlation between surface roughness after demineralization and remineralization cycles for 18 days and acid penetration depth. This would indicate that polishing and remineralization smoothing of the enamel surface after IPR could possibly reduce the risk of enamel demineralization and interproximal caries. This concurs with results from previous studies that reported that IPR does not increase the risk of iatrogenic tooth decay [7]. In clinical orthodontics, the manual IPR technique (GMS) as well as the oscillating (IOS) system may be of advantage when deciding on IPR therapy, considering future caries susceptibility of the IPR-treated surfaces. In this regard, one other fact to consider clinically is the efficacy of IPR with different systems, which has been shown to be superior with oscillating systems [22], whereas diamond-coated manual strips have been shown to be associated with a rapid loss of abrasive power during use [23].

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Enamel surface roughness after 18 days of interchanging 24 h demineralization and remineralization following interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) and polishing correlated significantly with acid penetration depth into interproximal enamel.

IPR-treated and polished enamel in general showed a reduced surface roughness compared to untreated enamel before IPR. Proper polishing of IPR-treated surfaces is thus advisable irrespective of the IPR procedure used, to minimize caries susceptibility.

Remineralization processes reduced the depth of acid penetration in the untreated as well as the IPR-treated groups. Proper remineralization procedures after IPR are thus important, irrespective of the IPR method used, to minimize caries susceptibility.

The manual IPR method using GMS and even more the oscillating IPR system (IOS) yielded smoother interproximal enamel surfaces and less acid penetration depth than the KAS and STB IPR systems after polishing and 18 days of cyclic demineralization and remineralization. The GMS and IOS systems might thus have a clinical advantage in reducing caries susceptibility after IPR.

Raw data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

19 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-25991

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Dr. Danesh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 02 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thiago Saads Carvalho, Privatdozent, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an interesting study, and I would also like to offer possible points of improvement:

1. The authors performed profilometry on the proximal surface, but the teeth had been mounted on silicon (with contact points). If there were contact points, how was profilometry performed? Were the teeth removed from the silicon and afterwards replaced to continue the experiment? Could you clarify this issue on the paper?

2. The authors use codes for the systems, which are presented in table 1, but Tables 2 and 3 do not contain the same codes. For examples, KAS is not present. Standardizing these codes would help the readers. Also, the same codes should be used in Figure 3, to allow the readers to immediately identify the systems.

3. Table 2 shows roughness values initially for both mesial and distal surfaces. Is this an average of both surfaces? However, Table 3 shows roughness after 24h demin(only for mesial surfaces) and after 18 days cycle (only for distal). Why were both surfaces not measured at both times, like it was doen in table 2? If they were really measured separately, differences between the two surfaces could compromise the analyses.

Please also take notice of other comments made by the other reviewer, presented below.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In keeping with usual publication standards, please remove any copyright and trademark symbols from the manuscript text.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"We have no financial interest in this study."

Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

c. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to revise the paper “Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction”. The article analyzed the enamel surface quality comparing different IPR procedures, and it focused on the importance of remineralization to improve enamel surface quality. The paper is very interesting since IPR techniques have been gaining popularity in last years especially with new clear appliances’ treatments. There are some minor flaws to correct to improve the contents.

- First of all, the paper should be edit by native English because the language is inadequate and needs to be improved.

- Abstract, Conclusion section: the authors should explain the importance of remineralization after IPR procedures

- Considering the lack of literature on the topic, I suggest to add the following recent papers:

1. Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: Oscillating versus manual strips. Gazzani, F., Lione, R., Pavoni, C., Mampieri, G., Cozza, P. 2019. BMC Oral Health. 19(1),247

2. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of diamond-coated strips. Lione, R., Gazzani, F., Pavoni, C.,, Tagliaferri, V., Cozza, P. 2017. Angle Orthodontist. 87(3), pp. 455-459

- Conclusion section: the authors should give some clinical implications of their findings and highlight the clinical importance to use remineralization after IPR procedures.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Feb 2020

Response to the reviewers’ comments

Additional Editor Comments:

1. The authors performed profilometry on the proximal surface, but the teeth had been mounted on silicon (with contact points). If there were contact points, how was profilometry performed? Were the teeth removed from the silicon and afterwards replaced to continue the experiment? Could you clarify this issue on the paper?

Response: As correctly assumed teeth were demounted from the mounting silicon mold for profilometry analysis and then reinserted in their original position to continue the experiment. We added this information to the materials and methods section of the paper.

2. The authors use codes for the systems, which are presented in table 1, but Tables 2 and 3 do not contain the same codes. For examples, KAS is not present. Standardizing these codes would help the readers. Also, the same codes should be used in Figure 3, to allow the readers to immediately identify the systems.

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention! We standardized the abbreviations accordingly in all tables, Figure 3 and the manuscript.

3. Table 2 shows roughness values initially for both mesial and distal surfaces. Is this an average of both surfaces? However, Table 3 shows roughness after 24h demin (only for mesial surfaces) and after 18 days cycle (only for distal). Why were both surfaces not measured at both times, like it was done in table 2? If they were really measured separately, differences between the two surfaces could compromise the analyses.

Response: Indeed the initial roughness values are an average of mesial and distal surfaces, as these were pooled for descriptive statistics as stated in the legend of Table 2, since roughness values between mesial and distal surfaces of teeth were quite similar at baseline and did not show significant differences in surface roughness. As both mesial and distal surfaces received identical IPR treatment, they were again both reevaluated after IPR with results shown in Table 2. Again we found no significant differences in surface roughness between mesial and distal surfaces after IPR treatment, which is why this was also reported as pooled results for mesial and distal surfaces in Table 2. From this point onward, mesial and distal surfaces received different treatments (24h demin or cyclic demin/remin for 18days respectively) forming two separate experimental groups, we decided to measure the clinically relevant endpoints rather than identical timepoints for both surfaces = experimental groups. As after IPR no differences were found for enamel roughness, there should be no compromise to the analysis, as the endpoints reported in Table 3 show, how in particular the two different treatments (24h demin or 18 cyclic demin/remin respectively) affected the IPR-treated enamel surface, irrespective of the mesial/distal aspect. The mesial and distal surfaces of each tooth were only used to be able to have the same enamel quality available for both experimental groups (24h demin or 18h cyclic demin/remin) thus minimizing biasing effects on the results (“split-tooth” model), which would have been more pronounced, if we had used double the number of teeth and only evaluated mesial surfaces. Measuring both surfaces at both times would have had no additional scientific or clinical gain, as mesial surfaces were covered in wax after 24h to protect them from further demineralisation, thus surface roughness of these mesial surfaces would have been the same as after 24h. The same is true for distal surfaces, which would most likely have had the same surface roughness after 24h of demineralisation as the mesial surfaces, as they started from the same baseline roughness, thus no additional clinically relevant information would have been gained.

Reviewer #1:

1. First of all, the paper should be edit by native English because the language is inadequate and needs to be improved.

Response: The paper was revised by a professional English language service and the respective translation certificate is provided.

2. Abstract, Conclusion section: the authors should explain the importance of remineralization after IPR procedures.

Response: We added a respective explanation both to the abstract and the conclusions section.

3. Considering the lack of literature on the topic, I suggest to add the following recent papers:

• Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: Oscillating versus manual strips. Gazzani, F., Lione, R., Pavoni, C., Mampieri, G., Cozza, P. 2019. BMC Oral Health. 19(1),247

• In vitro and in vivo evaluation of diamond-coated strips. Lione, R., Gazzani, F., Pavoni, C.,, Tagliaferri, V., Cozza, P. 2017. Angle Orthodontist. 87(3), pp. 455-459

Response: We added the suggested papers as suggested and briefly discussed their results.

4. Conclusion section: the authors should give some clinical implications of their findings and highlight the clinical importance to use remineralization after IPR procedures.

Response: We added a respective explanation and clinical implications to the conclusions section.

11 Feb 2020

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction.

PONE-D-19-25991R1

Dear Dr. Danesh,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Thiago Saads Carvalho, Privatdozent, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

13 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-25991R1

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

Dear Dr. Danesh:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Thiago Saads Carvalho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE