Comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with novel non-orthodontic methods for residual adhesive removal

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480

DESCRIPTION

0
Reader(s)
0
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 32 , ISSUE 1 (May 2016) > List of articles

Comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with novel non-orthodontic methods for residual adhesive removal

John Andrews / Joseph L. Hagan / Paul C. Armbruster / Richard W. Ballard *

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 41-47, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-111

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 30-July-2021

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Background: Following the debonding of orthodontic brackets, the removal of residual adhesive from the enamel surface is required. Published adhesive removal protocols present conflicting advice.

Aims: The present study evaluated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with non-traditional orthodontic polishing systems.

Methods: The facial aspects of 35 extracted human incisor teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness prior to the bonding of orthodontic brackets. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with a 12-fluted titanium carbide bur. The teeth were randomly divided into seven groups (N = 5 per group) and the enamel surface was polished with one of seven products. All samples were re-scanned for surface roughness and subjectively evaluated via SEM.

Results: There was no significant difference in enamel surface roughness between the groups when compared using surface profilometry. Visual observations from the SEM evaluations demonstrated differences in the enamel surface at the microscopic level that were not detected by profilometric analysis.

Conclusions: The present study found no statistically significant difference in mean enamel smoothness change from pretreatment to post-treatment between the seven polishing methods studied via profilometer surface reading measurements. An SEM analysis showed visual differences in enamel striations viewed at 1000× magnification in a comparison of traditional versus nontraditional polishing methods.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Kim K, Heimisdottir K, Gebauer U, Persson GR. Clinical and microbiological findings at sites treated with orthodontic fixed appliances in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:223-8.

2. Bishara SE, Olsen ME, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of a new light-cured orthodontic bonding adhesive. Am J Orthod Dent Orthop 1998;114:80-7.

3. Velo S, Carano A, Carano A. Self-etching vs. traditional bonding systems in orthodontics: and in vitro study. Orthod Craniofacial Res 2002;5:166-9.

4. Vieira AC, Pinto RA, Chevitarese O, Almeida MA. Polishing after debracketing: its influence upon enamel surface. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1993;18:7-11.

5. Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995;65:103-10.

6. Franklin E. Enamel damage during adhesive removal leads to big malpractice claims. The AAO Bulletin. February 2015;33:24-5.

7. Webb BJ, Koch J, Hagan JL, Ballard RW, Armbruster PC. Enamel surface roughness of preferred debonding and polishing protocols. J Orthod [Internet]. 2015 Aug 18.

8. Caspersen I. Residual acrylic adhesive after removal of plastic orthodontic brackets: a scanning electron microscopic study. Am J Orthod 1997;71:637-50.

9. Zachrisson BU, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979;75:121-7.

10. Rouleau BD Jr, Marshall GW Jr, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1982;81:423-6.

11. Ulusoy C. Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:209-15.

12. Price RB, Sutow EJ. Micrographic and profilometric evaluation of the finish produced by diamond and tungsten carbide finishing burs on enamel and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:311-6.

13. Reliance Orthodontic Products. Viewed 12 February 2016, <http://www.relianceorthodontics.com/v/vspfiles/downloadables/instructions_sheets/renew_instructions.pdf>.

14. Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:284-93.

15. Thomas BW, Hook CR, Draughn RA. Laser-aided degradation of composite resin. Angle Orthod 1996;66:281-6.

16. Radlanski RJ. A new carbide finishing bur for bracket debonding. J Orofac Orthop 2001;62:296-304.

17. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/Polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent 2004;29:275-9.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS