Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up –comparison of three different tools

Authors: Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska, Katarzyna Tandecka, Tomasz Szatkiewicz, Piotr Stępień, Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak, Katarzyna Grocholewicz

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The present study aimed at 3D analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss following the debonding of orthodontic molar tubes and orthodontic clean-up to assess the effectiveness and safety of One-Step Finisher and Polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover in comparison to tungsten carbide bur.

Materials and methods

Thirty human molars were bonded with chemical-cure orthodontic adhesive (Unite, 3M, USA), stored 24 h in 0.9 % saline solution, debonded and cleaned using three methods (Three groups of ten): tungsten carbide bur (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany), one-step finisher and polisher (One gloss, Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan) and Adhesive Residue Remover (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany). Direct 3D scanning in blue-light technology to the nearest 2 μm was performed before etching and after adhesive removal. Adhesive remnant height and volume as well as enamel loss depth and volume were calculated.
An index of effectiveness and safety was proposed and calculated for every tool; adhesive remnant volume and duplicated enamel lost volume were divided by a sum of multiplicands. Comparisons using parametric ANOVA or nonparametric ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare between tools for adhesive remnant height and volume, enamel loss depth and volume as well as for the proposed index.

Results

No statistically significant differences in the volume (p = 0.35) or mean height (p = 0.24) of adhesive remnants were found (ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis test) between the groups of teeth cleaned using different tools. Mean volume of enamel loss was 2.159 mm3 for tungsten carbide bur, 1.366 mm3 for Shofu One Gloss and 0.659 mm3 for Adhesive Residue Remover - (F = 2.816, p = 0.0078). A comparison of the proposed new index between tools revealed highly statistically significant differences (p = 0.0081), supporting the best value for Adhesive Residue Remover and the worst – for tungsten carbide bur.

Conclusions

The evaluated tools were all characterized by similar effectiveness. The most destructive tool with regards to enamel was the tungsten carbide bur, and the least was Adhesive Residue Removal.
Literature
1.
Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;108:284–93.CrossRef
2.
Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995;65:103–10.PubMed
3.
Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod. 1979;49:1–10.PubMed
4.
Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. Am J Orthod. 1977;71:651–65.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rouleau BD, Marshall Jr GW, Cooley R. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1982;81:423–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
David VA, Stanley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR. Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002;121:291–6.CrossRef
7.
Karan S, Kiircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Comparison of two different burs. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:1081–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
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 Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132:71–6.CrossRef
9.
Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;126:717–24.CrossRef
10.
Ireland AJ, Hosein I, Sherriff M. Enamel loss at bond-up, debond and clean- up following the use of a conventional light-cured composite and a resin- modified glass polyalkenoate cement. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:413–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel – current knowledge and future perspectives – a systematic review. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:1991–2001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinşahin A, Karabulut E. Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:314–21.PubMed
14.
Radlanski RJ. A new carbide finishing bur for bracket debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2001;62:296–304.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Smith SC, Walsh LJ, Taverne AA. Removal of orthodontic bonding resin residues by CO2 laser radiation: surface effects. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1999;17:13–8.PubMed
16.
Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F. Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child. 1998;65:313–7.PubMed
17.
Sessa T, Civović J, Pajević T, Juloski J, Beloica M, Pavlović V, et al. Scanning electron microscopic examination of enamel surface after fixed orthodontic treatment: in-vivo study. Srpski Celok Lek. 2012;140:22–8.CrossRef
18.
Baumann DF, Brauchli L, van Vaes H. The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2011;201:125–32.CrossRef
19.
Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Latucca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140:696–702.CrossRef
20.
Schiefelbein C, Rowland K. A comparative method of adhesive removal methods. Int J Orthod Milnawaukee. 2011;22:17–22.
21.
Pont HB, Özcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;138(387):e1–9. discussion 387–389.
22.
Almeida HC, Vedovello Filho M, Vedovello SA, Young AA, Ramirez-Yanez GO. Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Int J Orthod Milnawaukee. 2009;20:9–13.
23.
Tecco S, Tetè S, D’Attilio M, Festa F. Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Minerva Stomatol. 2008;57:81–94.PubMed
24.
Roush EL, Marshall SD, Forbes DP, Perry FU. In vitro study assessing enamel surface roughness subsequent to various final finishing procedures after debonding. Northwestern Dent Res. 1977;7:2–6.
25.
Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:333–8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
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.
27.
Ferreira FG, Nouer DF, Silva NP, Garbui IU, Correr-Sobrinho L, Nouer PR. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1853–64.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Fitzpatrick DA, Way D. The effects of wear, acid etching and bond removal on human enamel. Am J Orthod. 1977;72:671–81.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Brown CRL, Way D. Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Orthod. 1978;74:663–71.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pus MD, Way D. Enamel loss due to orthodontic bonding with filled and unfilled resins using various clean-up techniques. Am J Orthod. 1980;77:269–83.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Tüfekçi E, Merrill TE, Pintado MR, Beyer JP, Brantley WA. Enamel loss associated with orthodontic adhesive removal on teeth with white spot lesions: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;125:733–9.CrossRef
32.
Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E. Three-dimensional mea- surement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131:301. e9–15.CrossRef
33.
Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:25–32.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Banerjee A, Paolinelis G, Socker M, McDonald F, Watson TF. An in vitro investigation of the effectiveness of bioactive glass air-abrasion in the ‘selective’ removal of orthodontic resin adhesive. Eur J Oral Sci. 2008;116:488–92.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F. Bracket bonding with 15- or 60-second etching and adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod. 1999;69:45–8.PubMed
36.
Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Mousavi N, Ghasemi A. A comparative study of shear bond strength between metal and ceramic brackets and artificially aged composite restorations using different surface treatments. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:610–7.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R, Oliver RG, Newcombe RG. A clinical study of amount of adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding, comparing etch times of 15 and 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:415–21.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Knosel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Sadat-Khonsari R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O, et al. Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:1036–44.CrossRefPubMed
39.
40.
Brosh T, Kaufman A, Balabanovsky A, Vardimon AD. In vivo strength and enamel damage in two orthodontic debonding methods. J Biomech. 2005;38:1107–13.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tandecka K, Szatkiewicz T, Sporniak-Tutak K, Grocholewicz K. Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes. Head Face Med. 2014;10:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Nq JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2004;29:275–9.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up –comparison of three different tools
Authors
Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska
Katarzyna Tandecka
Tomasz Szatkiewicz
Piotr Stępień
Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak
Katarzyna Grocholewicz
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0131-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Oral Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Is there a connection between sublingual varices and hypertension?

Research article

Salivary microflora and mode of delivery: a prospective case control study

Research article

Traumatic dental injuries in a university hospital: a four-year retrospective study

Research article

Dentin dysplasia type I—novel findings in deciduous and permanent teeth

Research article

A study of the provision of hospital based dental General Anaesthetic services for children in the North West of England: Part 2 - the views and experience of families and dentists regarding service needs, treatment and prevention

Research article

Attitude and awareness of medical and dental students towards collaboration between medical and dental practice in Hong Kong