Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding

Ulusoy, Çaöry

doi:10.1590/s1678-77572009000300015

Cited by 48 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Retief and Denys, 2 Waes, Matter and Krejci, 11 Rouleau, Grayson and Cooley, 13 Eminkahyagil et al 15 and Ulosoy 31 also found scratches and furrows when using this bur, but reported that the adhesive remnant can be removed with minimal damage to enamel if the instrument was used carefully.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing

Pignatta¹,

Júnior

Santos

2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Preserving the dental enamel structure during removal of orthodontic accessories is a clinician's obligation. Hence the search for an evidence based debonding protocol. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate and compare, by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the effects of four different protocols of bracket debonding and subsequent polishing on enamel surface, and to propose a protocol that minimizes damage to enamel surface. METHODS: Twelve bovine permanent incisors were divided into four groups according to the instrument used for debonding and removal of the adhesive remnant. In groups 1 and 2, brackets were debonded with a straight debonding plier (Ormco Corp., Glendora, California, USA), and in groups 3 and 4, debonding was performed with the instrument Lift-Off (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA). In groups 1 and 3, the adhesive remnant was removed using a long adhesive removing plier (Ormco Corp., Glendora, California, USA) and in groups 2 and 4, residual adhesive was removed with a tungsten carbide bur (Beavers Dental) at high-speed. After each stage of debonding and polishing, enamel surfaces were replicated and electron micrographs were obtained with 50 and 200X magnification. RESULTS: All four protocols of debonding and polishing caused enamel irregularities. CONCLUSION: Debonding brackets with straight debonding plier, removal of adhesive remnant with a tungsten carbide bur and polishing with pumice and rubber cup was found to be the protocol that caused less damage to enamel surface, therefore this protocol is suggested for debonding brackets.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing

Pignatta¹,

Júnior

Santos

2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The gross removal of residual composite left on the enamel surface after grinding of bracket is thought to be best accomplished with a tungsten carbide bur. Çaöry ulusoyl and Sacha Ryf,stated that this method using different rotary finishing instruments is laborious and is associated with subsequent enamel damage and a loss of up to 19.2 mm of enamel [12,13].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have reported no bracket breakage when using the ultrasonic instrument to remove them, whereas 10% to 35% broke when using pliers or torsional wrenches. However, the time required to remove brackets with the ultrasonic instrument is long, 38 to 50 seconds, compared with that required with pliers, one second and some amount of scratches were reported on enamel in some studies [12,13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Debonding Characteristics of Conventional and New Debonding Instrument used for Ceramic, Composite and Metallic Brackets – An Invitro Study

Choudhary

Gill

Reddy

et al. 2014

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Debonding procedure is time consuming and damaging to the enamel if performed with improper technique. Various debonding methods include: the conventional methods that use pliers or wrenches, an ultrasonic method, electrothermal devices, air pressure impulse devices, diamond burs to grind the brackets off the tooth surface and lasers. Among all these methods, using debonding pliers is most convenient and effective method but has been reported to cause damage to the teeth. Recently, a New Debonding Instrument designed specifically for ceramic and composite brackets has been introduced. As this is a new instrument, little information is available on efficacy of this instrument. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the debonding characteristics of both "the conventional debonding Pliers" and "the New debonding instrument" when removing ceramic, composite and metallic brackets.

show abstract

“…As sequential use of polishing discs, starting with the coarse grit and continuing with medium, fine and ultrafine discs seems to be time consuming, diamond or silicon carbide coated one-step systems were developed to reduce clinical time and cost. However; PG was found to be the most time consuming method although they resulted in enamel surfaces nearly as smooth as intact enamel [14]. The one-step diamond micropolishers (PG) used in this study are diamond-impregnated polishing devices and designed for use without water cooling in the final polishing of composite restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of One-Step and Multistep Polishing Systems for the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites

Baltacıoğlu¹,

Irmak²,

Ulusoy³

et al. 2016

OJST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study analyzed the effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of a microfilled (Amaris), and a nanofilled resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) using Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis and surface roughness tester. Materials and Methods: Thirty five specimens of each material were prepared in a plexiglass mold (10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth) and cured against a Mylar matrix strip to create a baseline surface. The average surface roughness was measured using a surface profilometer (Mahr Perthometer SP4, Germany) in three different positions on each sample before and after finishing with one of the seven finishing procedures: Procedure 1: Mylar strip (control), Procedure 2: Tungsten carbide burs, Procedure 3: Diamond burs, Procedure 4: Procedure 2 + one-step diamond micropolisher (PoGo), Procedure 5: Procedure 2 + multi-step discs (Super-snap), Procedure 6: Procedure 3 + one-step diamond micropolisher (PoGo), Procedure 7: Procedure 3 + multi-step discs (Supersnap). The obtained data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan test at a p = 0.05 significance level. Results: Nanofilled composite showed significantly lower Ra values than microfilled composite in procedures 4, 6 and 7 (p < 0.05). In other procedures, there were no significant differences among composites (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Nanofilled resin composite showed significantly lower Ra values than microfilled resin composite. Regardless of finishing methods, diamond micro-polisher produced smoother surfaces than polishing discs.

show abstract

Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding

Cited by 48 publications

References 15 publications

Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing

Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing

Comparison of the Debonding Characteristics of Conventional and New Debonding Instrument used for Ceramic, Composite and Metallic Brackets – An Invitro Study

Comparison of One-Step and Multistep Polishing Systems for the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About