Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess the effects of three methods of adhesive remnant removal (carbide bur and low speed handpiece, carbide bur and high speed handpiece, and zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite bur), after orthodontic bracket debonding, on tooth color and enamel surface roughness. Methods: Ninety sound premolar teeth were selected. The baseline tooth color was assessed using Vita spectrophotometer. The teeth were subjected to bracket bonding processes and then randomly divided into three equal groups. In each group, composite remnant was removed by one of the three methods of adhesive removal, and the teeth were then subjected to color assessment again. To measure the surface roughness, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with x400 magnification was used. Results: ANOVA showed that the effect of the three methods of adhesive remnant removal on ∆L, ∆b and ∆E was statistically significant (p=0.01), but without significant effect on ∆a. Comparison of the means showed that composite bur and high speed carbide bur yielded the highest ∆E (p=0.05), and had a significant difference when compared to carbide bur and low speed handpiece. The highest ∆L and ∆b values belonged to samples approached with composite bur and carbide bur with high speed handpiece, respectively. SEM analysis showed that the composite bur created a very smooth surface, compared to the other two methods. Conclusion: Zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite created the smoothest enamel surface and highest color change, when compared to the other two methods.

Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems

“…This research indicated that the different methods used for the removal of residual adhesive resulted in different degrees of enamel loss; this was in accordance with other studies [34,35]. It was observed in this study that all seven tested finishing systems had an effect on the enamel tooth surface, and none of the residual cement removal systems succeeded in maintaining the original shape and smoothness of the enamel surface compared to the enamel condition prior to the de-bracketing condition.…”

Evaluation of orthodontists’ attitudes and practices regarding residual resin removal methods

“…The methods for removing residual resins after the removal of orthodontic devices are cited in the literature with different recommendations, 1 , 8 , 11 , 13 and controversial protocols, indicating the need for new studies. 10 …”

“…Zirconia burs were reported by 24.3% of the participants, whereas composite burs were mentioned by only 2% of the participants. These low numbers may be related to the lack of knowledge of the professionals about the materials or to the few existing studies 10 , 17 evaluating the results of the use of composite or zirconia burs on the enamel surface after the removal of residual resins in Orthodontics.…”

“…As for the techniques used, the preference for the use of drills may be related to the greater number of publications focusing on this material, making it better known and its use widely adopted by professionals. 8 , 10 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 On the other hand, the use of ultrasound was reported as an alternative technique, but it is considered unfavorable and harmful, as it increases surface roughness and causes deep scratches on tooth structure, due to its vibratory movement 5 .…”

“…Different methods for removing residual resins are used, in order to remove the remnants without damaging the underlying enamel 8 , such as: manual removal methods using pliers, tungsten carbide or composite burs mounted on low or high speed handpieces 8 , with or without the use of irrigation 9 , in addition to the possibility of using high-power lasers. 10 …”