American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Original articleSurface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment
Section snippets
Material and methods
Ninety-nine premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes, with a maximum storage period of 1 month, were used. They had no carious lesions or microcracks and were kept in distilled water that was changed weekly to prevent bacterial growth.14 The teeth were embedded horizontally in self-cure acrylic resin so that at least 2 mm of buccal enamel was exposed. The buccal enamel surfaces of the teeth were pumiced, washed for 30 seconds, and dried for 10 seconds with a moisture-free air spray. The 90
Results
Table I shows the distribution of the ARI scores of the groups. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups. The distributions were similar; this is essential for accurate comparison.
Table II shows the times required for cleanup. Because the micromotor is a lower-speed handpiece than the aerator, the procedures involving the micromotor took longer. The fastest procedure was performed by using ATC. Sof-Lex disks and fiberglass burs took significantly longer for the
Discussion
The concern over debonding and inducing enamel surface alterations arises from the importance of the uppermost layer of the enamel, the hardness and higher mineral and fluoride content of which are particularly important. The loss of surface enamel and associated exposure of enamel prism endings to the oral environment can result in decreased resistance of the enamel to the organic acids in plaque and make it more prone to decalcification.16 The microscopic appearance showed enamel scarring.
Conclusions
Our goal was to restore the enamel to its original state after orthodontic treatment. The methods tested in this study could not restore the original enamel surface, but they were close to the values of intact enamel. Sof-Lex disk performance was superior to that of other combined protocols or fiberglass burs. Sof-Lex disks restored the enamel the closest to the original enamel surface.
References (22)
- et al.
Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2001) - et al.
Shear bond strength of composite, glass ionomer, and acidic primer adhesive sytems
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1999) - et al.
The shear bond strengths of stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded to teeth with orthodontic composite resin and various fissure sealants
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1990) - et al.
Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding
Am J Orthod
(1977) - et al.
Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques
Am J Orthod
(1979) - et al.
Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in-vitro study. Part 1. Background and methods
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1990) - et al.
Laser-aided debonding of orthodontic ceramic brackets
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1992) - et al.
Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment
Am J Orthod
(1984) - et al.
Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets
Am J Orthod
(1982) - et al.
Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part II. Findings and clinical implications
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1990)
Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Cited by (54)
Effect of alumina particle morphology used for air abrasion on loss of enamel and luting composite resin
2021, Dental MaterialsCitation Excerpt :This surface appeared rough and sharp edged as the powder. Although many clinicians have created different methods of resin removal and enamel polishing no gold standard or consensus exists regarding the best resin removal technique with no or less damage to enamel surface [7,20,21]. This study aimed to assess the enamel loss resulting from air abrasion with two different air abrasion powders with differences in morphology and particle size.
A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
2021, Saudi Dental JournalCitation Excerpt :This is in contrast to previous studies that concluded there was a significant difference in enamel surface roughness change pretreatment and post-treatment when using a tungsten carbide bur to remove residual adhesive (Garg et al. 2018; Goel et al., 2017; Vidor et al., 2015). An additional study found that after debonding, Sof-Lex disks most successfully returned enamel to its original surface roughness (Özer et al., 2010). Osorio et al. (1998) found that Sof-Lex disks produced an enamel surface that was second to the Enhance system with the gloss polishing paste or superior to the Enhance system without the polishing paste.
Comparison of enamel surface roughness and color alteration after bracket debonding and polishing with 2 systems: A split-mouth clinical trial
2021, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCitation Excerpt :In this double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial, the effects of 2 polishing systems on enamel SR and color were compared, providing clinically useful information. Despite previous qualitative and quantitative studies evaluating the enamel SR2-5 and color change6-11 after bracket removal, no previous clinical study evaluated the use of Sof-Lex Spiral Wheels for enamel polishing. Split-mouth studies offer the advantages of concurrent experimental and control assignment, limiting sample size requirements, and increasing precision.35
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.