- Visibility 21 Views
- Downloads 17 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI 10.18231/j.ijodr.22954.1760502628
-
CrossMark
Enamel surface roughness analysis following bracket debonding using five different residual adhesive removal system: An in vitro study
- Author Details:
-
Rashmi Singh *
-
Atul Kumar Singh
-
Omkar Singh Yadav
-
Abrin Ragland
-
Poonam Ghodke
Poonam Ghodke
Objective: This in vitro study aimed to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the enamel surface after removal of residual orthodontic adhesive following bracket debonding. Surface evaluation was performed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), while polishing time and surface roughness were assessed to compare the efficacy of four different adhesive removal techniques.
Materials and Methods: Fifty-one extracted human premolars were randomly allocated into five experimental groups (n = 10 each), with one tooth serving as a control. The adhesive removal methods included: G1 – Tungsten Carbide Burs, G2 – Enhance Polishing Points, G3 – DU10CA-Ortho Disc, G4 – Fiberglass Bur and G5 – Sof-Lex Pop-On Disc. After initial bondinand complete adhesive removal, surface roughness (Ra2) was measured. One sample per group underwent SEM analysis. Time required for adhesive removal and polishing was recorded. Polishing times were analyzed using ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test, while Ra2 values were compared using ANCOVA.
Results: Group 5 showed the lowest mean surface roughness (0.43 μm), followed by Groups 3 (0.71 μm), 4 (1.06 μm), 2 (1.21 μm), and 1 (2.1 μm), with statistically significant differences among groups (P ≤ 0.001). The fiberglass bur required significantly more time for adhesive removal than the other methods (P ≤ 0.001). SEM analysis revealed that all methods caused varying degrees of enamel surface damage.
Conclusion: All methods effectively removed adhesive remnants. DU10CA-Ortho and Sof-Lex discs provided smoother enamel surfaces with comparable time efficiency.
References
- Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955, 34(6):849–53. doi: 10.1177/00220345550340060801
[Google Scholar] - Inchingolo F, Inchingolo AM, Riccaldo L, Morolla R, Sardano R, Di Venere D, et al. Structural and Color Alterations of Teeth following Orthodontic Debonding: A Systematic Review. J Funct Biomater. 2024;15(5):1–15. doi: 10.3390/jfb15050123
[Google Scholar] - Tu Y, Ren H, He Y, Ying J, Chen Y. Interaction between microorganisms and dental material surfaces: general concepts and research progress. J Oral Microbiol. 2023;15(1):1–15.
- Reynolds IR. A Review of Direct Orthodontic Bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975; 2:171–8. doi: 10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666
[Google Scholar] - Bosco E, Potrubacz MI, Arrizza L, Chimenti C, Tepedino M. Enamel preservation during composite removal after orthodontic debonding comparing hydroabrasion with rotary instruments. Dent Mater J. 2020; 39(3):367–374. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2019-053
[Google Scholar] - Yassaei S, Joshan N, Abdolahy S, Abadi AHR. Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding. Dental Press J Orthod. 2023;27(6):1–26. doi:10.1590/2177
[Google Scholar]‑6709.27.6.e2220352 - Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinşahin A, Karabulut E. Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76(2):314–21. doi:
- 1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0314:EORMOE]2.0.CO;2.
- Cesur E, Arslan C, Orhan AI, Bilecenoğlu B, Orhan K. Effect of different resin removal methods on enamel after metal and ceramic bracket debonding: an in vitro micro-computed tomography study. J Orofac Orthop. 2022; 83(3):157–171. doi: 10.1007/s00056-021-
[Google Scholar] 00306-1. - Sigiliao LCF, Marquezan M, Elias CN, Ruellas AC, Sant’Anna EF. Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015, 20(5):78–85. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.078-085.oar
[Google Scholar] - Thys DG, Martins FRP, Cardinal L, Ribeiro GLU. In vitro enamel surface roughness analysis of 4 methods for removal of remaining orthodontic adhesive after bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 2023; 93(2):213–221. doi: 10.2319/031722-227.1
[Google Scholar] - Can-Karabulut DC, Ozyurt P, Gurbuz A, Gullu A. Usage of fiber- reinforced resin instruments in interproximal surfaces. Eur J Dent. 2008, 2(2):96–101.
- Claudino D, Kuga MC, Belizário L, Pereira JR. Enamel evaluation by scanning electron microscopy after debonding brackets and removal of adhesive remnants. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(3):e248‑e251. doi:10.4317/jced.54553
[Google Scholar] - Øgaard B, Fjeld M: The enamel surface and bonding in orthodontics. Semin Orthod. 2010; 16(1):37–48.
- Thys DG, Martins FRP, Cardinal L, Ribeiro GLU. In vitro enamel surface roughness analysis of 4 methods for removal of remaining orthodontic adhesive after bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 2023;93(2):213–221. doi: 10.2319/031722-227.1
[Google Scholar] - Vanya RM, Chirla A, Digumarthi UK, Karri T, Radhika B, Manojna S. Enamel surface roughness evaluation after debonding and residual resin removal using four different burs. J Contemp Orthod. 2023;7(3):173–181. doi:10.18231/j.jco.2023.030
[Google Scholar] - Ruiz JL, Finger WJ, Sasazaki H, Komatsu M. Removal of Invisalign retention attachments: a new minimally invasive method. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009; 30(9):634–6.
- Koide K, Tanaka S, Endo T. Use of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser for removing remnant adhesive from the enamel surface in rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Odontology. 2020; 108(2):271–79. doi: 10.1007/s10266-019-00448-0
[Google Scholar] - Sugsompian K, Tansalarak R, Piyapattamin T. Comparison of the enamel surface roughness from different polishing methods: scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy investigation. Eur J Dent. 2020; 14(2):299–305. doi: 10.1055/s-
[Google Scholar] 0040-1709945. - Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tandecka K, Szatkiewicz T, Stepień P, Sporniak‑Tutak K, Grocholewicz K. Three‑dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean‑up—comparison of three different tools. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0131-6
[Google Scholar] - Cardoso LAM, Valdrighi HC, Filho MV, Correr AB. Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014; 19(6):105–12. doi:
- 1590/2176-9451.19.6.105-112.oar.
- Pont HB, Ozcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138(4):e1-387–e9. doi: 10.1016/j
[Google Scholar] ajodo.2010.01.028. - Soares Tenório KC, Neupmann Feres MF, Tanaka CJ, Augusto MKM, Rodrigues JA, Pereira da Silva HD, et al. In vitro evaluation of enamel surface roughness and morphology after orthodontic debonding: traditional cleanup systems versus polymer bur. Int Orthod. 2020, 18(3):546–554. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2020.04.006
[Google Scholar]