Cargando…

A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding

INTRODUCTION: At the completion of treatment, the orthodontic practitioner’s goal is to effectively remove all traces of adhesive and return enamel to its initial state. With the advent of new polishing systems being released each year, there may be one product that is superior to others. AIM: The p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Melvin, Elizabeth A., Yu, Qingzhao, Xu, Xiaoming, Laird, Camille G., Armbruster, Paul C., Ballard, Richard W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8665166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34938028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2021.09.011
_version_ 1784613956274356224
author Melvin, Elizabeth A.
Yu, Qingzhao
Xu, Xiaoming
Laird, Camille G.
Armbruster, Paul C.
Ballard, Richard W.
author_facet Melvin, Elizabeth A.
Yu, Qingzhao
Xu, Xiaoming
Laird, Camille G.
Armbruster, Paul C.
Ballard, Richard W.
author_sort Melvin, Elizabeth A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: At the completion of treatment, the orthodontic practitioner’s goal is to effectively remove all traces of adhesive and return enamel to its initial state. With the advent of new polishing systems being released each year, there may be one product that is superior to others. AIM: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of new polishing systems (in the last 5–10 years) used in general dentistry on enamel surface roughness following debond utilizing profilometery and scanning electron microscopy and compare them to established orthodontic polishing systems results. METHODS: Fifty-two mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to one of five test groups (N = 10) and two incisors (untreated enamel) were used for profilometer and scanning electron microscopy analysis at the end of testing. After bracket removal, the teeth were polished using traditional polishing products (Komet H48L bur, Reliance ‘Renew’ point) and newer polishing products (Coltene Spiral Composite Plus Polisher, Ultradent Jiffy Composite Polishing Spiral or 3M Sof-Lex™ Diamond Polishing System). The results were evaluated using a profilometer and scanning electron microscopy images. RESULTS: The results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that the mean change in enamel surface roughness was not statistically different both in the traditional and novel groups. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test found that there was no statistically significant difference in the change in enamel surface roughness between instrument groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in enamel surface roughness after polishing between traditional orthodontic polishing systems and the selected novel polishing systems. SEM analysis revealed similar findings. This supports previous research suggesting that a wide variety of polishing systems or none at all, may be used to restore enamel smoothness after removal of orthodontic appliances.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8665166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86651662021-12-21 A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding Melvin, Elizabeth A. Yu, Qingzhao Xu, Xiaoming Laird, Camille G. Armbruster, Paul C. Ballard, Richard W. Saudi Dent J Original Article INTRODUCTION: At the completion of treatment, the orthodontic practitioner’s goal is to effectively remove all traces of adhesive and return enamel to its initial state. With the advent of new polishing systems being released each year, there may be one product that is superior to others. AIM: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of new polishing systems (in the last 5–10 years) used in general dentistry on enamel surface roughness following debond utilizing profilometery and scanning electron microscopy and compare them to established orthodontic polishing systems results. METHODS: Fifty-two mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to one of five test groups (N = 10) and two incisors (untreated enamel) were used for profilometer and scanning electron microscopy analysis at the end of testing. After bracket removal, the teeth were polished using traditional polishing products (Komet H48L bur, Reliance ‘Renew’ point) and newer polishing products (Coltene Spiral Composite Plus Polisher, Ultradent Jiffy Composite Polishing Spiral or 3M Sof-Lex™ Diamond Polishing System). The results were evaluated using a profilometer and scanning electron microscopy images. RESULTS: The results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that the mean change in enamel surface roughness was not statistically different both in the traditional and novel groups. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test found that there was no statistically significant difference in the change in enamel surface roughness between instrument groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in enamel surface roughness after polishing between traditional orthodontic polishing systems and the selected novel polishing systems. SEM analysis revealed similar findings. This supports previous research suggesting that a wide variety of polishing systems or none at all, may be used to restore enamel smoothness after removal of orthodontic appliances. Elsevier 2021-12 2021-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8665166/ /pubmed/34938028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2021.09.011 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Melvin, Elizabeth A.
Yu, Qingzhao
Xu, Xiaoming
Laird, Camille G.
Armbruster, Paul C.
Ballard, Richard W.
A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
title A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
title_full A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
title_fullStr A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
title_short A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
title_sort comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8665166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34938028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2021.09.011
work_keys_str_mv AT melvinelizabetha acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT yuqingzhao acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT xuxiaoming acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT lairdcamilleg acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT armbrusterpaulc acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT ballardrichardw acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT melvinelizabetha comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT yuqingzhao comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT xuxiaoming comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT lairdcamilleg comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT armbrusterpaulc comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding
AT ballardrichardw comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding