A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding

Saudi Dental Journal

Paul C. Armbruster¹  Camille G. Laird¹  Richard W. Ballard¹  Xiaoming Xu²  Qingzhao Yu³  Elizabeth A. Melvin⁴ 

[1] LSU Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry, 1100 Florida Ave, Department of Orthodontics, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA;LSU Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry, 1100 Florida Ave, Department of Prosthodontics, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA;LSU Health Sciences Center School of Public Health, 2020 Gravier Street, Department of Statistics, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA;Private Practice of Orthodontics, 1540 Rock Springs Road, Smyrna, TN 37167, USA;

关键词: Debonding;    Enamel polishing;    Resin removal;   

DOI  :  

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Introduction: At the completion of treatment, the orthodontic practitioner’s goal is to effectively remove all traces of adhesive and return enamel to its initial state. With the advent of new polishing systems being released each year, there may be one product that is superior to others. Aim: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of new polishing systems (in the last 5–10 years) used in general dentistry on enamel surface roughness following debond utilizing profilometery and scanning electron microscopy and compare them to established orthodontic polishing systems results. Methods: Fifty-two mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to one of five test groups (N = 10) and two incisors (untreated enamel) were used for profilometer and scanning electron microscopy analysis at the end of testing. After bracket removal, the teeth were polished using traditional polishing products (Komet H48L bur, Reliance ‘Renew’ point) and newer polishing products (Coltene Spiral Composite Plus Polisher, Ultradent Jiffy Composite Polishing Spiral or 3M Sof-Lex™ Diamond Polishing System). The results were evaluated using a profilometer and scanning electron microscopy images. Results: The results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that the mean change in enamel surface roughness was not statistically different both in the traditional and novel groups. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test found that there was no statistically significant difference in the change in enamel surface roughness between instrument groups. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in enamel surface roughness after polishing between traditional orthodontic polishing systems and the selected novel polishing systems. SEM analysis revealed similar findings. This supports previous research suggesting that a wide variety of polishing systems or none at all, may be used to restore enamel smoothness after removal of orthodontic appliances.

【 授权许可】

Unknown