Cargando…

Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation

Objective  This study aimed to compare the enamel surface roughness created by four polishing methods after debonding, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Materials and Methods  Four experimental polishing groups (Sof-Lex disc, SD; sandblaster, SB; tungsten...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sugsompian, Kiatanan, Tansalarak, Ratchawan, Piyapattamin, Thosapol
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd. 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7274833/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32392603
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1709945
_version_ 1783542670990245888
author Sugsompian, Kiatanan
Tansalarak, Ratchawan
Piyapattamin, Thosapol
author_facet Sugsompian, Kiatanan
Tansalarak, Ratchawan
Piyapattamin, Thosapol
author_sort Sugsompian, Kiatanan
collection PubMed
description Objective  This study aimed to compare the enamel surface roughness created by four polishing methods after debonding, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Materials and Methods  Four experimental polishing groups (Sof-Lex disc, SD; sandblaster, SB; tungsten carbide bur, TB; and white stone bur, WB) and one control group were selected from 100 premolars ( n = 20/group). The experimental teeth were bonded with a bracket, thermocycled, and debonded. Residual adhesive was removed by either of the respective methods. Pre and postdebonding root mean square (Rq) values were obtained from AFM evaluations. All specimens were examined and evaluated with SEM using a modified enamel surface index (modified ESI). Statistical Analysis  Differences among the polishing methods were compared with analysis of variance and Fisher’s least significant difference test at p < 0.05. Results  Both microscopic evaluations indicated that the surface with the greatest roughness herein belonged to the SD group, followed by that for SB, TB, and WB groups. AFM measurements indicated a maximum postdebonding Rq herein for the WB group and a significantly greater surface roughness for the TB and WB groups than for the SD and SB groups. Among the experimental groups, SEM followed by modified ESI evaluations revealed similar data to those obtained with AFM. Significant differences were seen among all paired groups, except for that between the SB and TB groups. Conclusion  Within the limitations of this study, all four polishing methods were concluded to be clinically acceptable for removing residual orthodontic adhesives.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7274833
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72748332020-06-10 Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation Sugsompian, Kiatanan Tansalarak, Ratchawan Piyapattamin, Thosapol Eur J Dent Objective  This study aimed to compare the enamel surface roughness created by four polishing methods after debonding, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Materials and Methods  Four experimental polishing groups (Sof-Lex disc, SD; sandblaster, SB; tungsten carbide bur, TB; and white stone bur, WB) and one control group were selected from 100 premolars ( n = 20/group). The experimental teeth were bonded with a bracket, thermocycled, and debonded. Residual adhesive was removed by either of the respective methods. Pre and postdebonding root mean square (Rq) values were obtained from AFM evaluations. All specimens were examined and evaluated with SEM using a modified enamel surface index (modified ESI). Statistical Analysis  Differences among the polishing methods were compared with analysis of variance and Fisher’s least significant difference test at p < 0.05. Results  Both microscopic evaluations indicated that the surface with the greatest roughness herein belonged to the SD group, followed by that for SB, TB, and WB groups. AFM measurements indicated a maximum postdebonding Rq herein for the WB group and a significantly greater surface roughness for the TB and WB groups than for the SD and SB groups. Among the experimental groups, SEM followed by modified ESI evaluations revealed similar data to those obtained with AFM. Significant differences were seen among all paired groups, except for that between the SB and TB groups. Conclusion  Within the limitations of this study, all four polishing methods were concluded to be clinically acceptable for removing residual orthodontic adhesives. Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd. 2020-05 2020-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7274833/ /pubmed/32392603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1709945 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Sugsompian, Kiatanan
Tansalarak, Ratchawan
Piyapattamin, Thosapol
Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation
title Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation
title_full Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation
title_fullStr Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation
title_short Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation
title_sort comparison of the enamel surface roughness from different polishing methods: scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7274833/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32392603
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1709945
work_keys_str_mv AT sugsompiankiatanan comparisonoftheenamelsurfaceroughnessfromdifferentpolishingmethodsscanningelectronmicroscopyandatomicforcemicroscopyinvestigation
AT tansalarakratchawan comparisonoftheenamelsurfaceroughnessfromdifferentpolishingmethodsscanningelectronmicroscopyandatomicforcemicroscopyinvestigation
AT piyapattaminthosapol comparisonoftheenamelsurfaceroughnessfromdifferentpolishingmethodsscanningelectronmicroscopyandatomicforcemicroscopyinvestigation