Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up –comparison of three different tools

Abstract

BackgroundThe present study aimed at 3D analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss following the debonding of orthodontic molar tubes and orthodontic clean-up to assess the effectiveness and safety of One-Step Finisher and Polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover in comparison to tungsten carbide bur.Materials and methodsThirty human molars were bonded with chemical-cure orthodontic adhesive (Unite, 3M, USA), stored 24 h in 0.9 % saline solution, debonded and cleaned using three methods (Three groups of ten): tungsten carbide bur (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany), one-step finisher and polisher (One gloss, Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan) and Adhesive Residue Remover (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany). Direct 3D scanning in blue-light technology to the nearest 2 μm was performed before etching and after adhesive removal. Adhesive remnant height and volume as well as enamel loss depth and volume were calculated.An index of effectiveness and safety was proposed and calculated for every tool; adhesive remnant volume and duplicated enamel lost volume were divided by a sum of multiplicands. Comparisons using parametric ANOVA or nonparametric ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare between tools for adhesive remnant height and volume, enamel loss depth and volume as well as for the proposed index.ResultsNo statistically significant differences in the volume (p = 0.35) or mean height (p = 0.24) of adhesive remnants were found (ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis test) between the groups of teeth cleaned using different tools. Mean volume of enamel loss was 2.159 mm3 for tungsten carbide bur, 1.366 mm3 for Shofu One Gloss and 0.659 mm3 for Adhesive Residue Remover - (F = 2.816, p = 0.0078). A comparison of the proposed new index between tools revealed highly statistically significant differences (p = 0.0081), supporting the best value for Adhesive Residue Remover and the worst – for tungsten carbide bur.ConclusionsThe evaluated tools were all characterized by similar effectiveness. The most destructive tool with regards to enamel was the tungsten carbide bur, and the least was Adhesive Residue Removal.

Effect of orthodontic debonding and residual adhesive removal on 3D enamel microroughness

“…Thus different types of burs were not analyzed in the present study. A recent study ( Janiszewska-Olszowska et al, 2015 ) comparing tungsten carbide bur, one-step finisher and polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover proved their similar effectiveness in adhesive removal. The volume of adhesive remnants measured on direct 3D scans after enamel clean-up did not differ signficantly between the tools used.…”

“…Enamel etching and resin infiltration into the superficial enamel layer during the bonding of orthodontic brackets makes it impossible to restore the original enamel condition after terminating fixed appliance therapy ( Fjeld & Ogard, 2006 ). Bracket debonding and adhesive removal are associated with iatrogenic effects including: enamel cracking ( Rix, Foley & Mamandras, 2001 ; Heravi, Rashed & Raziee, 2008 ; Dumbryte et al, 2013 ), enamel fracture ( Zanarini et al, 2013 ; Janiszewska-Olszowska et al, 2014a ; Janiszewska-Olszowska et al, 2014b ), removing external enamel layer rich in fluoride ( Al Shamsi et al, 2007 ; Banerjee et al, 2008 ; Ireland, Hosein & Sherriff, 2005 ; Hosein, Sherriff & Ireland, 2004 ; Pus & Way, 1980 ; Brown & Way, 1978 ; Fitzpatrick & Way, 1977 ; Janiszewska-Olszowska et al, 2015 ), leaving adhesive remnants ( Janiszewska-Olszowska et al, 2014 ; Janiszewska-Olszowska et al, 2014b ; Vieira et al, 1993 ; Ryf et al, 2012 ; Janiszewska-Olszowska et al, 2015 ) and surface roughening ( Ahrari et al, 2013 ; Karan, Kiircelli & Tasdelen, 2010 ; Eliades et al, 2004 ; Roush et al, 1977 ). Adhesive remnants and surface roughening may be associated with plaque accumulation and discoloration ( Joo et al, 2011 ).…”

“…However, a very limited data exists on 3D roughness enamel alteration following the use of different tools, other than tungsten carbide bur. A recent study ( Janiszewska-Olszowska et al, 2015 ) revealed that a one-step polisher and finisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover have a lesser detrimental effect referring to enamel loss during adhesive removal than tungsten carbide bur. The aim of the present study was to perform a precise quantitative three-dimensional assessment of enamel surface roughness resulting from orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal and compare surfaces resulting from three different tools: tungsten carbide bur, a one-step finisher and polisher, and Adhesive Residue Remover.…”

Effect of Different Denture Cleansers on Surface Roughness of Acrylic Denture Base Materials

“…In this study, the optical interferometry noncontact profilometer was used to measure surface roughness. Compared with a stylus profilometer, the optical interferometry noncontact profilometer is faster, nondestructive, and allow repeatability [40]. Optical profilers measure roughness (Sa) of a selected micro area at a high spatial resolution with no contact with the specimen.…”

“…Optical profilers measure roughness (Sa) of a selected micro area at a high spatial resolution with no contact with the specimen. In addition, preparation of the specimen is not required [40]. Sa is a surface roughness and for technical surfaces, the relationship between Ra and Sa is 1.25; however, this rule does not have to apply to biological specimen [40].…”