Comparison between two methods for resin removing after bracket debonding

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess - using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) - the effectiveness of two abrasive discs, one made from silicon and one from aluminum oxide, in removing adhesive remnants (AR) after debonding orthodontic brackets. METHODS: Ten randomly selected bovine teeth were used, i.e., 2 in the control group, and the other 8 divided into two groups, which had orthodontic brackets bonded to their surface with Concise Orthodontic Adhesive (3M). The following methods were employed - in one single step - to remove AR after debracketing: Group A, Optimize discs (TDV) and Group B, Onegloss discs (Shofu), used at low speed. After removing the AR with the aforementioned methods, the teeth were prepared to undergo SEM analysis, and photographs were taken of the enamel surface with 50x magnification. Six examiners evaluated the photographs applying the Zachrisson and Årtun enamel surface index (ESI) system (1979). RESULTS: Group A exhibited minor scratches on the enamel surface as well as some AR in some of the photographs, while Group B showed a smoother surface, little or no AR and some abrasion marks in the photographs. No statistically significant differences were found between the two methods and the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The two abrasive discs were effective in removing the AR after bracket debonding in one single step.

Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study

“…Our findings corroborate those of other studies, 3 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 26 indicating that all rotary instruments cause varying changes in enamel surface. The association between the time spent and change in roughness (ΔRa, ΔRz) showed a negative and moderate correlation: the longer the time spent on removing the remaining resin, the lower was the roughness left on the enamel surface, which is in agreement with a previous study.…”

“…In a previous study, microscopic evaluation showed that the use of abrasive points (Optimize Discs - TDV - and Onegloss Discs - Shofu) maintained the enamel surface of the study groups in a similar condition to the enamel surface of the control groups. 25 …”

“…It is up to the orthodontist to apply methods to minimize damage to tooth enamel. 25 Thorough resin removal and polishing after debonding is entirely dependent on the operator 27 who is responsible for selecting the instruments, using points with particles with a lower degree of hardness than enamel to minimize iatrogenic abrasions and scratches; 2 for the pressure applied to the handpiece and for eliminating resin from the tooth surface.…”

O Uso Da Terapia Fotodinâmica No Tratamento Da Doença Periodontal Em Pacientes Transplantados Renais- Análise Clínica E Microbiológica

“…Reconhece-se que a remoção do remanescente adesivo deve ser realizada de forma criteriosa pelo ortodontista, o qual deve minimizar os danos ao esmalte (De Marchi et al, 2012). No entanto, apesar do presente estudo ter verificado que os danos causados pela remoção do bráquete poderem ser considerados ausentes, é importante que o profissional seja cuidadoso no momento da remoção do bráquete e do remanescente resinoso, a fim de deixar a superfície dental o mais semelhante possível à superfície antes da colagem.…”

Do fluorescent agents alter the mechanical strength of orthodontic adhesives? An in vitro and clinical study

“…After the polymerization of the acrylic resin, the vestibular surfaces of all the samples were subjected to prophylaxis with a paste of pumicestone and water, with the aid of a rubber cup, at low rotation for 10 s. The rubber cups were replaced every 5 teeth, which provided standardization in terms of the mechanical action of the prophylaxis for all the teeth. The teeth were then washed in running water for 10 s, and subsequently dried with light jets of oil-free, compressed air for 20 s [17]. The teeth received orthodontic tubes (3M Oral Care, Monrovia, CA, USA), bonded using the following adhesive systems: UV group (n = 20), Orthocem UV Trace adhesive with fluorescent agent (FGM, Joinville, Santa Catarina, Brazil); C group (n = 20), conventional adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Oral Care).…”