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

BMC Oral Health

Katarzyna Grocholewicz¹  Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak⁴  Piotr Stępień³  Tomasz Szatkiewicz²  Katarzyna Tandecka²  Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska¹ 

[1] Department of General Dentistry Pomeranian Medical, University of Szczecin, Al. Powstancow Wlkp. 72, Szczecin, 70-111, Poland;Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Koszalin, University of Technology, ul. Raclawicka 15-17, Koszalin, 75-620, Poland;Department of Technology and Education, ul. Śniadeckich 2, Koszalin, 75-453, Poland;Clinic of Maxillofacial Surgery Pomeranian Medical, University of Szczecin, Al. Powstancow Wlkp. 72, Szczecin, 70-111, Poland

关键词: Adhesive remnants;    Enamel damage;    Residual adhesive removal;    Orthodontic debonding;    Orthodontic clean-up;   

Others  :  1233828
DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-015-0131-6

 received in 2015-03-02, accepted in 2015-11-06,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The 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 methods

Thirty 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.

Results

No 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 mm ³for tungsten carbide bur, 1.366 mm ³for Shofu One Gloss and 0.659 mm ³for 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Janiszewska-Olszowska et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995; 108:284-293.
• [2]Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995; 65:103-110.
• [3]Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod. 1979; 49:1-10.
• [4]Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. Am J Orthod. 1977; 71:651-65.
• [5]Rouleau BD, Marshall GW, Cooley R. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1982; 81:423-426.
• [6]David VA, Stanley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR. Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002; 121:291-296.
• [7]Karan S, Kiircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Comparison of two different burs. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:1081-1088.
• [8]Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS, Ahn HS, Ro JH, Kim YD. Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: a 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007; 132:71-76.
• [9]Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004; 126:717-724.
• [10]Ireland AJ, Hosein I, Sherriff M. Enamel loss at bond-up, debond and clean- up following the use of a conventional light-cured composite and a resin- modified glass polyalkenoate cement. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27:413-419.
• [11]Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel – current knowledge and future perspectives – a systematic review. Med Sci Monit. 2014; 20:1991-2001.
• [12]Ulusoy C. Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17:209-215.
• [13]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; 76:314-321.
• [14]Radlanski RJ. A new carbide finishing bur for bracket debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2001; 62:296-304.
• [15]Smith SC, Walsh LJ, Taverne AA. Removal of orthodontic bonding resin residues by CO2 laser radiation: surface effects. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1999; 17:13-18.
• [16]Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F. Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child. 1998; 65:313-317.
• [17]Sessa T, Civović J, Pajević T, Juloski J, Beloica M, Pavlović V, Glisić B. Scanning electron microscopic examination of enamel surface after fixed orthodontic treatment: in-vivo study. Srpski Celok Lek. 2012; 140:22-28.
• [18]Baumann DF, Brauchli L, van Vaes H. The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2011; 201:125-132.
• [19]Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Latucca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011; 140:696-702.
• [20]Schiefelbein C, Rowland K. A comparative method of adhesive removal methods. Int J Orthod Milnawaukee. 2011; 22:17-22.
• [21]Pont HB, Özcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010; 138(387):e1-9.
• [22]Almeida HC, Vedovello Filho M, Vedovello SA, Young AA, Ramirez-Yanez GO. Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Int J Orthod Milnawaukee. 2009; 20:9-13.
• [23]Tecco S, Tetè S, D’Attilio M, Festa F. Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Minerva Stomatol. 2008; 57:81-94.
• [24]Roush EL, Marshall SD, Forbes DP, Perry FU. In vitro study assessing enamel surface roughness subsequent to various final finishing procedures after debonding. Northwestern Dent Res. 1977; 7:2-6.
• [25]Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26:333-338.
• [26]Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran). 2013; 10:82-93.
• [27]Ferreira FG, Nouer DF, Silva NP, Garbui IU, Correr-Sobrinho L, Nouer PR. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:1853-1864.
• [28]Fitzpatrick DA, Way D. The effects of wear, acid etching and bond removal on human enamel. Am J Orthod. 1977; 72:671-681.
• [29]Brown CRL, Way D. Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Orthod. 1978; 74:663-671.
• [30]Pus MD, Way D. Enamel loss due to orthodontic bonding with filled and unfilled resins using various clean-up techniques. Am J Orthod. 1980; 77:269-283.
• [31]Tüfekçi E, Merrill TE, Pintado MR, Beyer JP, Brantley WA. Enamel loss associated with orthodontic adhesive removal on teeth with white spot lesions: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004; 125:733-739.
• [32]Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E. Three-dimensional mea- surement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007; 131:301. e9-15.
• [33]Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34:25-32.
• [34]Banerjee A, Paolinelis G, Socker M, McDonald F, Watson TF. An in vitro investigation of the effectiveness of bioactive glass air-abrasion in the ‘selective’ removal of orthodontic resin adhesive. Eur J Oral Sci. 2008; 116:488-492.
• [35]Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F. Bracket bonding with 15- or 60-second etching and adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69:45-48.
• [36]Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Mousavi N, Ghasemi A. A comparative study of shear bond strength between metal and ceramic brackets and artificially aged composite restorations using different surface treatments. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34:610-617.
• [37]Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R, Oliver RG, Newcombe RG. A clinical study of amount of adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding, comparing etch times of 15 and 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 95:415-421.
• [38]Knosel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Sadat-Khonsari R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O, Ziebolz D. Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:1036-1044.
• [39]Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Tavakol P, Tavakol A, Amini N, Lynch E. Effect of multiple debonding sequences on shear bond strength of new stainless steel brackets. J Orthod Sci. 2015; 4(2):37-41.
• [40]Brosh T, Kaufman A, Balabanovsky A, Vardimon AD. In vivo strength and enamel damage in two orthodontic debonding methods. J Biomech. 2005; 38:1107-1113.
• [41]Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tandecka K, Szatkiewicz T, Sporniak-Tutak K, Grocholewicz K. Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes. Head Face Med. 2014; 10:37. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Nq JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2004; 29:275-279.