Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding

Cardoso, Larissa Adrian Meira; Valdrighi, Heloísa Cristina; Filho, Mário Vedovello; Correr, Américo Bortolazzo

doi:10.1590/2176-9451.19.6.105-112.oar

Cited by 33 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike the electron microscopy, profilometry, rugosimetry, and atomic force microscopy enable topographical 3D examination of specimens and cause a minor amount of damage, if any, to the specimen surfaces. 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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with those by other dental burs, a Sof-Lex disc produces a relatively smooth postpolished surface. 5,14 A sandblaster with aluminum oxide particles neatly removes stains on the enamel surface, 15 increases orthodontic bond strength, 16 and can be used for debonding with favorable outcomes. 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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Sugsompian¹,

Tansalarak

Piyapattamin

2020

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Sugsompian¹,

Tansalarak

Piyapattamin

2020

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, a correct debonding technique is important to avoid irreversible iatrogenic injuries such as rough surfaces, vertical cracks, pulp necrosis, loss of the external enamel surface, and also the presence of residual adhesive near the adhesion area. [ 6 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing

Sfondrini¹,

Scribante²,

Fraticelli³

et al. 2015

J Orthodont Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:To conduct an epidemiological survey of the orthodontic debonding techniques in Italy, and describe the most commonly used methods to remove the brackets and adhesive from the tooth surfaces.Materials and Methods:A survey consisting of 6 questions about bracket debonding methods and instruments used was emailed to 1000 orthodontists, who were members of the Italian Orthodontics Society (SIDO. Clinicians were characterized by different sex, age, origin, and professional experience.Results:Overall, 267 surveys were returned, representing a response rate of 26.7% of the participants interviewed. The 0.2% of the orthodontists responded, via email, confirming that they were not interested, while 3% of the questionnaires were sent back not completed. The 70.1% of the clinicians interviewed did not return any response. Overall, 64% of SIDO members (orthodontists) did not detect any enamel damage after debonding. The brackets used most frequently (89.14%) in clinical practice were the metal ones. The most commonly used pliers for bracket removal were cutters (37.08%) and bracket removal pliers (34.83%). For adhesive removal, low speed tungsten carbide burs under irrigation were the most widely utilized method for adhesive removal (40.08%), followed by high speed carbide burs (14.19%), and diamond burs (14.19%). The most frequently used instruments for polishing after debonding were rubber cups (36.70%) and abrasive discs (21.35%). The 31.21% of the orthodontists found esthetic enamel changes before bonding versus after debonding.Conclusions:This survey showed the high variability of different methods for bracket debonding, adhesive removal, and tooth polishing. The collected answers indicate that most orthodontists have developed their own armamentarium of debonding and polishing, basing their method on trials and errors.

show abstract

“…É inegável que a possibilidade de realização da colagem diretados bráquetesortodônticos ao esmalte dentário contribuiu para a simplificação dosprotocolos de colagem e descolagem 21 (Cardoso etal., 2014). Ainda assim, a presença de arcos, ligaduras e bráquetesortodônticos dificulta a higienização oral efetiva 1,22 ,o que contribui para o acúmulo de biofilmecariogênico ao redor da base dos bráquetes e, consequente, desmineralização do esmalte 1 .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Cinética De Polimerização De Compósitos Experimentais Bioativos Para a Colagem Ortodôntica

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objetivo: Investigar a influência da adição de partículas de fosfato de cálcio na cinética de polimerização e no grau de conversão (GC) de compósitos resinosos.Método: Quatro compósitos experimentais foram avaliados:G1- Apenas matriz orgânica à base de metacrilato (MM), G2- Adição de partículas de vidro de bário (2 µm) à MM,G3- Adição de partículas de fosfato dicálcico di-hidrato de (DCPD) não funcionalizadas à MM,G4- Adição de partículas de DPCD funcionalizadas com TEGDMA à MM.O conteúdo de carga inorgânica foi 20% em volume para todos os grupos. O GC foi avaliado por Espectroscopia Infravermelho com Transformada de Fourier. Resultados:Houve aumento do GC para todos os grupos em função do tempo,sem diferença estatística até 5s.A partir de 11s, o grupo contendo DCPD puro apresentou GC inferior aos demais grupos (p

show abstract

Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding

Cited by 33 publications

References 12 publications

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

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

Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing

Cinética De Polimerização De Compósitos Experimentais Bioativos Para a Colagem Ortodôntica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About