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