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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |