Analysis of enamel surface roughness after different adhesive removal techniques for orthodontic bracket debonding

Abstract

Background The objectives of this study were to explore traditional resin removal procedures in the debonding process and evaluate the Er:YAG laser as a plausible option. Methods Sixty premolar teeth were bonded with brackets. Then, brackets were removed and five adhesive clean-up methods were tested against control teeth: (a) Er:YAG laser at 200 mJ and 20 Hz; (b) Er:YAG laser at 305 mJ and 10 Hz; (c) 20-fluted flame-shaped tungsten carbide bur at high-speed; (d) #8-fluted round tungsten carbide bur at low-speed; and (e) #5 round end tapered fine diamond bur at high speed. Quantitative measurements including average (Avg) profile height, total indicator run-out (TIR), arithmetic average roughness (R a ), and time were made using profilometry. Qualitative evaluation of tooth surfaces was done using SEM. Results The two laser settings produced a statistically higher TIR, R a , and time compared to the controls (P < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the three bur techniques in regards to surface texture or time. Qualitatively, the 20-fluted carbide bur left the smoothest surface. Conclusion The Er:YAG laser at the tested settings would not be appropriate for adhesive removal. The interaction of the Er:YAG wavelength under these conditions was not comparable to the 20-fluted flame-shaped tungsten carbide bur at high speed for orthodontic adhesive removal leaving a smoother enamel surface.

Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods

“…In the present study, two types of tungsten carbide burs have been applied: a 12-fluted round end tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur and a 12-fluted round tungsten carbide bur with reduced vibrations. As it had been assumed based on the study by Palmer et al [22], the visual assessment confirmed more enamel damage caused by a round bur. However, using the SEM image evaluation in their study, Pignatta et al [9] concluded that a tungsten carbide bur caused several scratches on the enamel surface, which were not observable after polishing.…”

“…After they had been rinsed with water for 30 seconds and air dried to frosty-white appearance, the buccal surfaces of the teeth were treated with the Aspire primer 7GM (OC Orthodontics) and light-cured for 10 seconds with a LED curing unit (Woodpecker, Guilin, China). Mesh pads of metal brackets Ortho Organizer Elite OptiMIM (Henry Schein® Orthodontics, Carlsbad, CA, USA) were removed by a dull round end tapered multifluted tungsten carbide bur at high speed to determine the mode of bond failure at the bracket base-adhesive interface, allowing the complete amount of resin to be left on the enamel surface of all 210 teeth [22]. A small amount of Aspire resin 5GM (OC Orthodontics) was put on the bases of metal brackets.…”

“…A light curing procedure was performed for 40 seconds according to the manufacturer's instructions [21]. All the samples were left in the artificial saliva for 48 hours, allowing complete polymerization of the adhesive as reported in similar studies [3,22]. The brackets were debonded using debonding Ixion pliers (DB Orthodontics, Silsden, UK).…”

“…All bonding, debonding and clean-up procedures were carried out by the same operator to eliminate differences among operator's techniques [23]. Adhesive removal from the enamel surface after every third teeth in the study was performed with a new bur for rotary instruments in Groups A, B, C, and D, respectively [22]. The adhesive removal procedure duration was measured in seconds.…”

Evaluation of enamel surface roughness using different types of polishing system after orthodontic bracket debonding

“…5 One investigator conducted all experiments to remove variability between operator techniques. 6 The tooth was embedded in a rectangular mold (about 25 mm width and 35 mm length) longitudinally which, is filled with stone only the buccal surface of the crown was seen (Figure 1). Thirty-five teeth were examined using a profilometer device to assess whether the teeth have already roughness or not, five teeth were excluded and, 30 teeth were involved in the study according to the inclusion criteria of the study.…”