» Articles » PMID: 15222720

Enamel Surface Roughness Following Debonding Using Two Resin Grinding Methods

Overview
Journal Eur J Orthod
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2004 Jun 30
PMID 15222720
Citations 42
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess quantitatively the roughness of the enamel surface following debonding using two resin removal methods. The enamel surface of 30 premolar crowns was covered with black tape with a 3 mm window on the middle buccal third to standardize the area of analysis. The initial enamel surfaces were subjected to profilometry, registering four roughness parameters (Ra, Rq, Rt and Rz). The brackets were bonded to the plaster-embedded enamel surfaces with a chemically cured, no-mix adhesive, and debonded after 1 week. Resin removal in half of the specimens was performed with an eight-bladed carbide bur, and in the other half with an ultra-fine diamond bur, both attached to a high speed hand piece; a second profilometric measurement was made after resin removal. Finishing of all surfaces was achieved with Soflex discs and a third registration of roughness followed. The duration of each resin removal protocol was also recorded. The results were analysed with two-way ANOVA and the Newman-Keuls test with the two resin grinding modes and the three intervals serving as discriminating variables (n = 15). For the duration results, a one-way ANOVA was used. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed with respect to enamel roughness parameters between the two resin grinding methods used, while there was no consistent roughness-reducing effect of finishing with Soflex discs. Resin removal with a diamond bur was achieved in approximately half the time compared with the eight-bladed bur. The increase in most roughness variables induced by the debonding procedures was not reversed at the end of the finishing stage, regardless of the resin removal protocol used, suggesting an irreversible effect on enamel texture.

Citing Articles

Influence of Operator, Tool, Dental Loupes, and Tooth Position on Enamel Loss and Composite Remnants After Removal of Composite Attachments for Orthodontic Clear Aligners: An Experimental Study Using 3D Profilometry.

Vandeloise J, Albert A, Herman R, Eldafrawy M, Sanchez C, Seidel L J Adhes Dent. 2024; 26():275-282.

PMID: 39655409 PMC: 11748032. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.b5876265.


Evaluation of anchorage loss after en masse retraction in orthodontic patients with maxillary protrusion using friction vs frictionless mechanics: randomized clinical trial.

Attia A, Shibl L, Dehis H, Mostafa Y, El-Beialy A Angle Orthod. 2024; 94(5):532-540.

PMID: 39230024 PMC: 11363983. DOI: 10.2319/113023-791.1.


Enamel surface roughness following debonding resin clean up using high speed air-turbine and electric handpieces. In vitro study.

Yousry T, Abolgheit S, Kassem H BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):609.

PMID: 38796434 PMC: 11127323. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04339-x.


In Vitro Study on the Influence of the Buccal Surface Convexity of the Tooth upon Enamel Loss after Bracket Removal.

Pallares-Serrano S, Pallares-Serrano A, Pallares-Serrano A, Pallares-Sabater A Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(7).

PMID: 38612033 PMC: 11012579. DOI: 10.3390/ma17071519.


Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system.

Ghaleb L, Al-Worafi N, Thawaba A, Abdulqader A, Alkamel A, Abdo Y BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):358.

PMID: 38509532 PMC: 10953161. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04138-4.