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

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to compare the enamel surface roughness created by four polishing methods after debonding, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Materials and Methods Four experimental polishing groups (Sof-Lex disc, SD; sandblaster, SB; tungsten carbide bur, TB; and white stone bur, WB) and one control group were selected from 100 premolars (n = 20/group). The experimental teeth were bonded with a bracket, thermocycled, and debonded. Residual adhesive was removed by either of the respective methods. Pre and postdebonding root mean square (Rq) values were obtained from AFM evaluations. All specimens were examined and evaluated with SEM using a modified enamel surface index (modified ESI). Statistical Analysis Differences among the polishing methods were compared with analysis of variance and Fisher’s least significant difference test at p < 0.05. Results Both microscopic evaluations indicated that the surface with the greatest roughness herein belonged to the SD group, followed by that for SB, TB, and WB groups. AFM measurements indicated a maximum postdebonding Rq herein for the WB group and a significantly greater surface roughness for the TB and WB groups than for the SD and SB groups. Among the experimental groups, SEM followed by modified ESI evaluations revealed similar data to those obtained with AFM. Significant differences were seen among all paired groups, except for that between the SB and TB groups. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, all four polishing methods were concluded to be clinically acceptable for removing residual orthodontic adhesives.

Effects of interproximal enamel reduction techniques used for orthodontics: A systematic review

“…Therefore, the information from the SEM images should be complemented with quantitative data obtained by AFM. 35 On the contrary, in the Paganelli et al 24 study, several omissions were found in the methodology that prevented the results of this study from being considered valid. Also, they acquired micrographs at 10 and 20 kV; however, it is known that surface studies cannot be performed at 20 kV.…”

“…The roughness measured in the SEM micrographs is a qualitative measurement that lacks reliability and reproducibility because these measurements depend on the ability of the operator for carrying out the calibration and the appropriate placement of the sample on the Z ‐axis. Therefore, the information from the SEM images should be complemented with quantitative data obtained by AFM 35 …”

Enamel Remineralization Competence of a Novel Fluoride-Incorporated Bioactive Glass Toothpaste—A Surface Micro-Hardness, Profilometric, and Micro-Computed Tomographic Analysis

“…The enamel surface becomes rough after an acidic challenge and smooths after remineralization [ 31 ]. Surface roughness or non-contact profilometry is a suitable method to assess surface changes in enamel and has been used by various researchers in the past [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Studies that have assessed enamel surface roughness after the application of our tested F-BG toothpaste are scarce in the literature.…”

Materials and methods used for adhesive remnant removal and polishing of enamel after orthodontic treatment: areview

“…Nonetheless, many more minor scratches persisted following pumicing [8]. A study done by Sugsompian et al [9] shows numerous fine scratches, some crack lines, and some on the teeth polished with a white stone bur; deep and coarse grooves parallel to the movement of the bur were apparent.…”

“…Alumina air-abrasion (AAA) is effective in removing the composite at a higher rate than sound enamel, indicating that it may be possible for this technique to be used to remove residual orthodontic adhesive resin on sound teeth. However, several mild, rough, and short distributed microscopic scratches with a few shallow pits were seen over the abraded area on the teeth polished with the sandblaster under a SEM [9]. While AAA showed an enamel loss of 0.386 mm, Bioactive glass showed an enamel loss of 0.135mmunder a SEM [11].…”