Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Bracket Debonding and Composite Resin Removal by Two Types of Burs
Journal of Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences,
Vol. 33 No. 3 (2015),
10 Esfand 2019
,
Page 210-219
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v33i3.24711
Abstract
Objective: Increased enamel surface roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding leads to increased plaque accumulation and enamel decalcification. Therefore, different methods are employed to achieve smoother enamel surfaces after bracket debonding. This study compared enamel surface roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding and composite resin removal using white stone and tungsten carbide burs.
Methods: In this in-vitro, experimental study, 20 first and second premolars of 10-20 year-olds were collected and their crowns were mounted in acrylic blocks. Roughness of the buccal surfaces of teeth was determined by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and the brackets were bonded to the teeth. After bracket debonding, composite remnants were removed using white stone and tungsten carbide burs. Parameters of enamel surface roughness were determined by AFM and time required for composite removal was also calculated. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the changes in parameters based on the time of measurement, type of bur and their interaction effect. Time required for composite resin removal by bur was analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons.
Results: Resin removal increased enamel surface roughness compared to the baseline values in all groups. However, no significant differences were noted between the two types of burs regarding arithmetic average of the roughness profile (Ra), the root mean square roughness (Rq) and the maximum peak-to-valley height in the sampling length (Rt) after resin removal. Time required for resin removal with tungsten carbide bur (34.2 seconds) was significantly shorter than with white stone bur (56.6 seconds)(both ps<0.0001).
Conclusion: Considering the similar enamel surface roughness values achieved by the two burs, tungsten carbide burs are recommended for resin removal following orthodontic bracket debonding.- Atomic force microscopy
- Composite resin
- Debonding
- Enamel
- Orthodontic bracket
- Tungsten carbide bur
- White Stone bur
How to Cite
References
Ayad MF, Rosenstiel SF, Hassan MM. Surface roughness of dentin after tooth preparation with different rotatory instrumentation. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 75: 122-128.
Cochrane NJ, Ratneser S, Woods MG, Reynolds EC. Effect of different orthodontic adhesive removal techniques on sound, demineralized and remineralized enamel. Aust Dent J 2012; 57: 365-372.
Binning G, Quate CF, Gerber C. Atomic force microscope. Phys Rev Lett 1986; 56: 930-933.
Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995; 65: 103- 110.
David VA, Staley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR. Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2002; 121: 291-296.
Diedrich P. Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: a study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 1981; 79: 500-522.
Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 333-338.
Gwinnett A. A comparison of shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1988; 93: 346-348.
Hong YH, Lew KK. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of enamel surface following five composite removal methods after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod 1995; 17: 121-128.
Howell S, Weekes WT. An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Aust Dent J 1990; 35: 245-252.
Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18: 155-163.
Eide R, Tveit AB. Finishing and polishing of composites. Acta Odontol Scand 1988; 46: 307-312.
Tonetto MR, Frizzera F, Porto TS, Jordäo KCF, de Andrade MF, dos Santos RS, et al. Methods for removalof resin remaining after debonding of orthodontic brackets: A literature review. J Dent Res Rev 2014; 1: 105-107.
Karan S, Toroglu MS. Porcelain refinishing with two different polishing systems after orthodontic debonding. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 947-953.
Katona TR. Stresses developed during clinical debonding of stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 39-46.
Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS, Ahn HS, Ro JH, Kim YD. Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: a 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2007; 132: 71-76.
Krell KV, Courey JM, Bishara SE. Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103: 258-266.
Marshall GW Jr, Balooch M, Gallagher RR, Gansky SA, Marshall SJ. Mechanical properties of the dentinoenamel junction: AFM studies of nanohardness, elastic modulus and fracture. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 4: 87-95.
Piacentini C, Sfondrini G. A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1996; 109: 57-63.
Rouleau BD Jr, Marshall GW Jr, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1982; 81: 423-426.
Tholt de Vasconcellos B, Miranda-Junior WG, Prioli R, Thompson J, Oda M. Surface roughness in ceramics with different finishing techniques using atomic force microscope and profilometer. Oper Dent 2006;4: 442-449.
Thomas BW, Hook CR, Draughn RA. Laser-aided degradation of composite resin. Angle Orthod1996; 66: 281-286.
Winchester L. Direct orthodontic bonding to porcelain: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1991; 18: 299- 308.
Yaple MJ, Quick DC. Experimental traumatic debonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 1994; 64: 131-136.
Zachrisson BU, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979; 75: 121-127.
Zachrisson BU, Buyukyılmaz T. Bonding in orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Varnasdal RJ, Vig KW, eds. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 4th Ed. St Louis: Elsevier. The C. V. Mosby Co. 2005; Chap 14: 579-659.
Wahle JJ, Wendt SL Jr. Dentinal surface roughness: a comparison of tooth preparation techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69: 160-164.
Whitehead SA, Shearer AC, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Comparison of two stylus methods for measuring surface texture. Dent Mater 1999; 15: 79-86.
Wennerberg A, Sawase T, Kultje C. The influence of Carisolv on enamel and dentine surface topography. Eur J Oral Sci 1999; 107: 297-306.
Brauchli LM, Baumgartner EM, Ball J, Wichelhaus A. Roughness of enamel surfaces after different bonding and debonding procedures. An in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 2011; 72: 61-67.
Siegel SC, von Fraunhofer JA. Dental cutting with diamond burs: heavy-handed or light touch? J Prosthodont 1999; 8: 3-9.
Ulusoy C. Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding. J Appl Oral Sci 2009; 17: 209-215.
Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod 2010; 80:1081-1088.
Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran) 2013; 10: 82-93.
- Abstract Viewed: 125 times
- PDF Downloaded: 48 times