Dataset Information

Enamel Surface Roughness after Lingual Bracket Debonding: An In Vitro Study.

ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to quantitatively assess changes in enamel roughness parameters before and after lingual bracket debonding. The lingual surface of 25 sound premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons was studied by 3D optical interferometric profilometry before and after debonding of lingual brackets following enamel finishing (with fine diamond) and polishing (with 12- and 20-fluted carbide burs). The roughness parameters tested were the amplitude parameters Sa and Sz, the hybrid parameter Sdr, and the functional parameters Sc and Sv. The parameter differences (after debonding-reference) were calculated, and statistical analysis was performed via a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Statistically significantly higher values were observed in all the surface roughness parameters of enamel surfaces after finishing and polishing, with the mostly affected parameter being the Sdr. Under the conditions of the present study, the finishing and polishing instruments used after debonding of lingual noncustomized brackets created a surface texture rougher than the control in all the tested roughness parameters.

SUBMITTER: Eichenberger M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6947563 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enamel Surface Roughness after Lingual Bracket Debonding: An In Vitro Study.

Eichenberger Martina M Iliadi Anna A Koletsi Despina D Eliades George G Verna Carlalberta C Eliades Theodore T

Materials (Basel, Switzerland) 20191213 24

The aim of the present study was to quantitatively assess changes in enamel roughness parameters before and after lingual bracket debonding. The lingual surface of 25 sound premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons was studied by 3D optical interferometric profilometry before and after debonding of lingual brackets following enamel finishing (with fine diamond) and polishing (with 12- and 20-fluted carbide burs). The roughness parameters tested were the amplitude parameters Sa and Sz, the hybr ...[more]

PMID: 31847233

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTermination of fixed orthodontic treatment is associated with bracket debonding and residual adhesive removal. These procedures increase enamel roughness to a degree that should depend on the tool used. Enamel roughening may be associated with bacterial retention and staining. However, a very limited data exists on the alteration of 3D enamel roughness resulting from the use of different tools for orthodontic clean-up.Aims1. To perform a precise assessment of 3D enamel surface roughness resulting from residual adhesive removal following orthodontic debonding molar tubes. 2. To compare enamel surfaces resulting from the use of tungsten carbide bur, a one-step polisher and finisher and Adhesive Residue Remover.Material and methodsBuccal surfaces of forty-five extracted human third molars were analysed using a confocal laser microscope at the magnification of 1080× and 3D roughness parameters were calculated. After 20 s etching, molar tubes were bonded, the teeth were stored in 0.9% saline solution for 24 hours and debonded. Residual adhesive was removed using in fifteen specimen each: a twelve-fluted tungsten carbide bur, a one-step finisher and polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover. Then, surface roughness analysis was repeated. Data normality was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare between variables of normal distribution and for the latter-Kruskal-Wallis test.ResultsSa (arithmetical mean height) was significantly different between the groups (p = 0, 01326); the smoothest and most repeatable surfaces were achieved using Adhesive Residue Remover. Similarly, Sq (root mean square height of the scale-limited surface) had the lowest and most homogenous values for Adhesive Residue Remover (p = 0, 01108). Sz (maximum height of the scale-limited surface) was statistically different between the groups (p = 0, 0327), however no statistically significant differences were found concerning Ssk (skewness of the scale-limited surface).DiscussionConfocal laser microscopy allowed 3D surface analysis of enamel surface, avoiding the limitations of contact profilometry. Tungsten carbide burs are the most popular adhesive removing tools, however, the results of the present study indicate, that a one step polisher and finisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover are less detrimental to the enamel. This is in agreement with a recent study based on direct 3D scanning enamel surface. It proved, that a one-step finisher and polisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover are characterized by a similar effectiveness in removing residual remnants as tungsten carbide bur, but they remove significantly less enamel.ConclusionOrthodontic debonding and removal of adhesive remnants increases enamel roughness. The smoothest surfaces were achieved using Adhesive Residue Remover, and the roughest using tungsten carbide bur.

Dataset Information

Enamel Surface Roughness after Lingual Bracket Debonding: An In Vitro Study.

Publications

Enamel Surface Roughness after Lingual Bracket Debonding: An In Vitro Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets