Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal—an in vitro study

Abstract

Background Orthodontic bonding and debonding procedures involve risk of damaging the enamel surface and changing its original morphology. The rough surface inhibits proper cleaning, invites plaque deposition, bacterial retention, and stain formation thus dampening the esthetic appearance of the teeth. Restoring the enamel to its original morphology is a challenge. Researches on better adhesive removal methods which can effectively remove the residual resin and restore it best to its original form are continuing till date. No study has compared four contemporary finishing systems for their efficiency on a single platform. Aim The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare enamel surface roughness after debonding using four different finishing and polishing systems. Material and methods Adhesive resin was removed from the buccal surface of 88 premolars after debonding with 4 groups. It included 22 teeth per group: group 1—One gloss system; group 2—Enhance finishing and polishing system; group 3—fiber reinforced stainbuster bur; and group 4—Soflex discs with wheels. Roughness was measured quantitatively and qualitatively with the help of surface roughness tester and scanning electron Microscope (SEM) respectively. Results No significant difference was found in baseline roughness in four groups. Highest post-polishing roughness was observed in Soflex group (4.62 μm) followed by One gloss system (3.36 μm), Enhance system (3.17 μm), and stainbuster bur (1.99 μm) ( p value < 0.01). Conclusion Stainbuster bur created the smoothest enamel surface that was close to the natural enamel followed by Enhance system, One gloss system, and Soflex disc and wheels.

Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation

“…Profilometry 8,9,17 and rugosimetry 14 provide 3D information on the enamel roughness at the microscale, while atomic force microscopy provides 3D information at the nanoscale with high vertical and lateral resolutions. 20 When compared with the methods in other documents, 3,10 our utilization of both atomic force and scanning electron microscopes coupled with the determination of both the Rq and modified ESI, respectively, should provide additional reliable details on the postpolished enamel surfaces.…”

“…3 Utilization of a hand scaler, an ultrasonic scaler, a laser, or a sandblaster, as well as some rotary instruments with a green stone bur, a white stone bur, a diamond bur, a tungsten carbide bur, a composite bur, or a Sof-Lex disc (3M ESPE; Minnesota, United States) was suggested for removing residual adhesive. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Because of its cost effectiveness, a white stone bur was recommended in a report. 11 A tungsten carbide bur, particularly that with 12 or 20 flutes, is reported as the gold standard for debonding because of its creation of a satisfactory finished surface.…”

“…9,17 While some indices are used for quantitative assessments of residual adhesive on enamel surfaces, 18,19 the composite remnant index (CRI) is regarded as an uncomplicated one with high reliability (►Table 1). 12 Enamel surface roughness can be visualized by profilometry, 9 rugosimetry, 14 scanning electron microscopy, 10 and atomic force microscopy. 20 Profilometry, rugosimetry, and atomic force microscopy provide three-dimensional (3D) numerical data of the surface roughness for subsequent evaluation.…”

Evaluation of the Effect of Casein Phosphopeptide–Amorphous Calcium Phosphate Mousse versus Natural Raw Fresh Milk on Enamel Surface Roughness After a pH Challenge

“…After that each group was immersed in 250 ml of remineralizing solution for 17 hours .This procedure was done one time each day and repeated for a period of 10 days (12,13) . Figure (2) and the resulted value was expressed in µm (14,15) .…”

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

“…A number of studies have examined the buccal enamel surface roughness after debonding buccal brackets analyzing different debonding and polishing protocols [7,9,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. 3D noncontact optical profilometry was also used in the study of Ferreira et al [22].…”