Cargando…
Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods
OBJECTIVE: To assess enamel surface under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after resin removal and enamel polishing procedures following brackets debonding, as well as compare the time required for these procedures. METHODS: A total of 180 deciduous bovine incisors were used. The enamel surface of...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dental Press International
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445227/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25992989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.2.061-067.oar |
_version_ | 1782373254968639488 |
---|---|
author | Vidor, Michele Machado Felix, Rafael Perdomo Marchioro, Ernani Menezes Hahn, Luciane |
author_facet | Vidor, Michele Machado Felix, Rafael Perdomo Marchioro, Ernani Menezes Hahn, Luciane |
author_sort | Vidor, Michele Machado |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To assess enamel surface under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after resin removal and enamel polishing procedures following brackets debonding, as well as compare the time required for these procedures. METHODS: A total of 180 deciduous bovine incisors were used. The enamel surface of each tooth was prepared and brackets were bonded with light cured Transbond XT composite resin. Brackets were removed in a testing machine. The samples were randomized and equally distributed into nine groups according to the resin removal and polishing technique: Group 1, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed; Group 2, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by a sequence of 4 Sof-lex polishing discs (3M); Group 3, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by Enhance tips (Dentsply). All groups were subdivided into (a) unpolished; (b) polished with aluminum oxide paste; and (c) polished with water slurry of fine pumice. Subsequently, the enamel surface was assessed and statistical analysis was carried out. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in enamel roughness and removal time among all groups. Groups 3a, 3b and 3c appeared to be the most efficient methods of removing resin with low damages to enamel. Groups 2a, 2b and 2c were the most time consuming procedures, and Group 2a caused more damages to enamel. CONCLUSION: The suggested protocol for resin removal is the 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by Enhance tips and polishing with aluminum oxide paste. This procedure seems to produce less damages and is less time consuming. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4445227 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Dental Press International |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44452272015-05-28 Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods Vidor, Michele Machado Felix, Rafael Perdomo Marchioro, Ernani Menezes Hahn, Luciane Dental Press J Orthod Articles OBJECTIVE: To assess enamel surface under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after resin removal and enamel polishing procedures following brackets debonding, as well as compare the time required for these procedures. METHODS: A total of 180 deciduous bovine incisors were used. The enamel surface of each tooth was prepared and brackets were bonded with light cured Transbond XT composite resin. Brackets were removed in a testing machine. The samples were randomized and equally distributed into nine groups according to the resin removal and polishing technique: Group 1, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed; Group 2, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by a sequence of 4 Sof-lex polishing discs (3M); Group 3, 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by Enhance tips (Dentsply). All groups were subdivided into (a) unpolished; (b) polished with aluminum oxide paste; and (c) polished with water slurry of fine pumice. Subsequently, the enamel surface was assessed and statistical analysis was carried out. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in enamel roughness and removal time among all groups. Groups 3a, 3b and 3c appeared to be the most efficient methods of removing resin with low damages to enamel. Groups 2a, 2b and 2c were the most time consuming procedures, and Group 2a caused more damages to enamel. CONCLUSION: The suggested protocol for resin removal is the 30-blade tungsten carbide bur in high speed followed by Enhance tips and polishing with aluminum oxide paste. This procedure seems to produce less damages and is less time consuming. Dental Press International 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4445227/ /pubmed/25992989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.2.061-067.oar Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Articles Vidor, Michele Machado Felix, Rafael Perdomo Marchioro, Ernani Menezes Hahn, Luciane Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods |
title | Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin
removal methods |
title_full | Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin
removal methods |
title_fullStr | Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin
removal methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin
removal methods |
title_short | Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin
removal methods |
title_sort | enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin
removal methods |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445227/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25992989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.2.061-067.oar |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vidormichelemachado enamelsurfaceevaluationafterbracketdebondinganddifferentresinremovalmethods AT felixrafaelperdomo enamelsurfaceevaluationafterbracketdebondinganddifferentresinremovalmethods AT marchioroernanimenezes enamelsurfaceevaluationafterbracketdebondinganddifferentresinremovalmethods AT hahnluciane enamelsurfaceevaluationafterbracketdebondinganddifferentresinremovalmethods |