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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vidor, Michele Machado, Felix, Rafael Perdomo, Marchioro, Ernani Menezes, Hahn, Luciane
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