Limits...
Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study.

Sigilião LC, Marquezan M, Elias CN, Ruellas AC, Sant'Anna EF - Dental Press J Orthod (2015)

Bottom Line: In Groups G12L and G12H, original enamel roughness did not change significantly.In Groups G30L, GDU, GR and GD, a smoother surface (p < 0.05) was found after clean-up.All enamel clean-up protocols were efficient because they did not result in increased surface roughness.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Brazilian Navy, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficiency of six protocols for cleaning-up tooth enamel after bracket debonding.

Methods: A total of 60 premolars were divided into six groups, according to the tools used for clean-up: 12-blade bur at low speed (G12L), 12-blade bur at high speed (G12H), 30-blade bur at low speed (G30L), DU10CO ORTHO polisher (GDU), Renew System (GR) and Diagloss polisher (GD). Mean roughness (Ra) and mean roughness depth (Rz) of enamel surface were analyzed with a profilometer. Paired t-test was used to assess Ra and Rz before and after enamel clean-up. ANOVA/Tukey tests were used for intergroup comparison. The duration of removal procedures was recorded. The association between time and variation in enamel roughness (∆Ra, ∆Rz) were evaluated by Pearson's correlation test. Enamel topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Results: In Groups G12L and G12H, original enamel roughness did not change significantly. In Groups G30L, GDU, GR and GD, a smoother surface (p < 0.05) was found after clean-up. In Groups G30L and GD, the protocols used were more time-consuming than those used in the other groups. Negative and moderate correlation was observed between time and (∆Ra, ∆Rz); Ra and (∆Ra, ∆Rz); Rz (r = - 0.445, r = - 0.475, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: All enamel clean-up protocols were efficient because they did not result in increased surface roughness. The longer the time spent performing the protocol, the lower the surface roughness.

No MeSH data available.


- Scanning electron microscopy (200 X magnification) of original enamel;perikymata (P); prism end openings (arrows).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644923&req=5

f03: - Scanning electron microscopy (200 X magnification) of original enamel;perikymata (P); prism end openings (arrows).

Mentions: Inspection in scanning electron microscopy shows the enamel surface before bonding(Fig 3) as well as after debonding and enamelclean-up (Fig 4). Scratches produced by the12-blade burs at low speed are presented in Figure4A. Deeper scratches were produced by the burs at high speed (Fig 4B). The highest degree of surface smoothness wasobtained in Group G30L (Fig 4C) This grouppresented surface more similar to the original tooth, as shown in Figure 3. In Groups GDU and GR, there was loss of perikymata withfine scratches caused by polishers of varying abrasiveness (Fig 4D and Fig 4E). Finescratches, which appeared to be well-marked and deep, caused by the diamond particlesembedded in rubber, were also seen in Group GD (Fig4F).


Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study.

Sigilião LC, Marquezan M, Elias CN, Ruellas AC, Sant'Anna EF - Dental Press J Orthod (2015)

- Scanning electron microscopy (200 X magnification) of original enamel;perikymata (P); prism end openings (arrows).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644923&req=5

f03: - Scanning electron microscopy (200 X magnification) of original enamel;perikymata (P); prism end openings (arrows).
Mentions: Inspection in scanning electron microscopy shows the enamel surface before bonding(Fig 3) as well as after debonding and enamelclean-up (Fig 4). Scratches produced by the12-blade burs at low speed are presented in Figure4A. Deeper scratches were produced by the burs at high speed (Fig 4B). The highest degree of surface smoothness wasobtained in Group G30L (Fig 4C) This grouppresented surface more similar to the original tooth, as shown in Figure 3. In Groups GDU and GR, there was loss of perikymata withfine scratches caused by polishers of varying abrasiveness (Fig 4D and Fig 4E). Finescratches, which appeared to be well-marked and deep, caused by the diamond particlesembedded in rubber, were also seen in Group GD (Fig4F).

Bottom Line: In Groups G12L and G12H, original enamel roughness did not change significantly.In Groups G30L, GDU, GR and GD, a smoother surface (p < 0.05) was found after clean-up.All enamel clean-up protocols were efficient because they did not result in increased surface roughness.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Brazilian Navy, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficiency of six protocols for cleaning-up tooth enamel after bracket debonding.

Methods: A total of 60 premolars were divided into six groups, according to the tools used for clean-up: 12-blade bur at low speed (G12L), 12-blade bur at high speed (G12H), 30-blade bur at low speed (G30L), DU10CO ORTHO polisher (GDU), Renew System (GR) and Diagloss polisher (GD). Mean roughness (Ra) and mean roughness depth (Rz) of enamel surface were analyzed with a profilometer. Paired t-test was used to assess Ra and Rz before and after enamel clean-up. ANOVA/Tukey tests were used for intergroup comparison. The duration of removal procedures was recorded. The association between time and variation in enamel roughness (∆Ra, ∆Rz) were evaluated by Pearson's correlation test. Enamel topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Results: In Groups G12L and G12H, original enamel roughness did not change significantly. In Groups G30L, GDU, GR and GD, a smoother surface (p < 0.05) was found after clean-up. In Groups G30L and GD, the protocols used were more time-consuming than those used in the other groups. Negative and moderate correlation was observed between time and (∆Ra, ∆Rz); Ra and (∆Ra, ∆Rz); Rz (r = - 0.445, r = - 0.475, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: All enamel clean-up protocols were efficient because they did not result in increased surface roughness. The longer the time spent performing the protocol, the lower the surface roughness.

No MeSH data available.