Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effects of three methods of adhesive remnant removal (carbide bur and low speed handpiece, carbide bur and high speed handpiece, and zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite bur), after orthodontic bracket debonding, on tooth color and enamel surface rou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: YASSAEI, Soghra, JOSHAN, Neda, ABDOLAHY, Shiva, ABADI, Azadeh Hakimi Rokn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dental Press International 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36995841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.27.6.e2220352.oar
_version_ 1784912942322417664
author YASSAEI, Soghra
JOSHAN, Neda
ABDOLAHY, Shiva
ABADI, Azadeh Hakimi Rokn
author_facet YASSAEI, Soghra
JOSHAN, Neda
ABDOLAHY, Shiva
ABADI, Azadeh Hakimi Rokn
author_sort YASSAEI, Soghra
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effects of three methods of adhesive remnant removal (carbide bur and low speed handpiece, carbide bur and high speed handpiece, and zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite bur), after orthodontic bracket debonding, on tooth color and enamel surface roughness. METHODS: Ninety sound premolar teeth were selected. The baseline tooth color was assessed using Vita spectrophotometer. The teeth were subjected to bracket bonding processes and then randomly divided into three equal groups. In each group, composite remnant was removed by one of the three methods of adhesive removal, and the teeth were then subjected to color assessment again. To measure the surface roughness, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with x400 magnification was used. RESULTS: ANOVA showed that the effect of the three methods of adhesive remnant removal on ∆L, ∆b and ∆E was statistically significant (p=0.01), but without significant effect on ∆a. Comparison of the means showed that composite bur and high speed carbide bur yielded the highest ∆E (p=0.05), and had a significant difference when compared to carbide bur and low speed handpiece. The highest ∆L and ∆b values belonged to samples approached with composite bur and carbide bur with high speed handpiece, respectively. SEM analysis showed that the composite bur created a very smooth surface, compared to the other two methods. CONCLUSION: Zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite created the smoothest enamel surface and highest color change, when compared to the other two methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10042465
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Dental Press International
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100424652023-03-28 Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding YASSAEI, Soghra JOSHAN, Neda ABDOLAHY, Shiva ABADI, Azadeh Hakimi Rokn Dental Press J Orthod Original Article OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effects of three methods of adhesive remnant removal (carbide bur and low speed handpiece, carbide bur and high speed handpiece, and zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite bur), after orthodontic bracket debonding, on tooth color and enamel surface roughness. METHODS: Ninety sound premolar teeth were selected. The baseline tooth color was assessed using Vita spectrophotometer. The teeth were subjected to bracket bonding processes and then randomly divided into three equal groups. In each group, composite remnant was removed by one of the three methods of adhesive removal, and the teeth were then subjected to color assessment again. To measure the surface roughness, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with x400 magnification was used. RESULTS: ANOVA showed that the effect of the three methods of adhesive remnant removal on ∆L, ∆b and ∆E was statistically significant (p=0.01), but without significant effect on ∆a. Comparison of the means showed that composite bur and high speed carbide bur yielded the highest ∆E (p=0.05), and had a significant difference when compared to carbide bur and low speed handpiece. The highest ∆L and ∆b values belonged to samples approached with composite bur and carbide bur with high speed handpiece, respectively. SEM analysis showed that the composite bur created a very smooth surface, compared to the other two methods. CONCLUSION: Zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite created the smoothest enamel surface and highest color change, when compared to the other two methods. Dental Press International 2023-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10042465/ /pubmed/36995841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.27.6.e2220352.oar Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
spellingShingle Original Article
YASSAEI, Soghra
JOSHAN, Neda
ABDOLAHY, Shiva
ABADI, Azadeh Hakimi Rokn
Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding
title Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding
title_full Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding
title_short Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding
title_sort comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36995841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.27.6.e2220352.oar
work_keys_str_mv AT yassaeisoghra comparativeevaluationofthreemethodsofadhesiveremnantremovalafterorthodonticbracketdebonding
AT joshanneda comparativeevaluationofthreemethodsofadhesiveremnantremovalafterorthodonticbracketdebonding
AT abdolahyshiva comparativeevaluationofthreemethodsofadhesiveremnantremovalafterorthodonticbracketdebonding
AT abadiazadehhakimirokn comparativeevaluationofthreemethodsofadhesiveremnantremovalafterorthodonticbracketdebonding