Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: oscillating versus manual strips

Gazzani, Francesca; Lione, Roberta; Pavoni, Chiara; Mampieri, Gianluca; Cozza, Paola

doi:10.1186/s12903-019-0934-y

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In clinical orthodontics, the manual IPR technique (GMS) as well as the oscillating (IOS) system may be of advantage when deciding on IPR therapy, considering future caries susceptibility of the IPR-treated surfaces. In this regard, one other fact to consider clinically is the efficacy of IPR with different systems, which has been shown to be superior with oscillating systems [22], whereas diamond-coated manual strips have been shown to be associated with a rapid loss of abrasive power during use [23].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess and compare the enamel surface quality after interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) was performed with different systems and to study the relation between acid penetration depth and enamel surface quality as well as the importance of remineralization. Methods Sixty-five extracted teeth were randomly allocated to five experimental groups: untreated control, manual with New Metal Strips, mechanical with oscillating segment (OS) discs, Safe-Tipped Bur Kit, and the Ortho-Strip, followed by 30 s of polishing with the Softflex system and the Compo-system after treating the tooth with OS discs. Mesial surfaces were demineralized for 24 h and distal surfaces were subjected to interchanging demineralization and remineralization cycles of 24 h each for 18 days. The analysis was carried out by profilometry, scanning electron microscopy, and polarization microscopy. Results After IPR and polishing, enamel roughness was reduced for all systems tested except for the Essix Safe-Tipped Bur Kit. Subsequent demineralization increased enamel roughness in all groups except controls beyond the original level prior to IPR except for IPR with New Metal Strips or Ortho-Strips and subsequent polishing. Cyclic demineralization and remineralization for 18 days yielded a reduction in acid penetration depth and an increase in surface smoothness, which correlated with each other only for controls and treatment with New Metal Strips or Ortho-Strips.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Invisalign treatment IPR is pre-planned during ClinCheck development: the clinician can decide the amount of IPR to be performed and the area and stage where it is needed [ 5 ]. To prevent residue excessive space, persisting misaligned teeth, or inter-arch discrepancies, it is important to quantify the amount of enamel that can be removed [ 10 ]. Moreover, the amount of IPR actually done has to be as the expected and programmed one in order to obtain the planned movements [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This high accuracy is essential to reach treatment objectives particularly during 3D digitally treatment plans [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enamel interproximal reduction during treatment with clear aligners: digital planning versus OrthoCAD analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of the study was to compare the amount of interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) provided on ClinCheck software with the amount of IPR carried out by the orthodontist during treatment with clear aligners. Methods 30 subjects (14 males, 16 females; mean age of 24.53 ± 13.41 years) randomly recruited from the Invisalign account of the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Rome “Tor Vergata” from November 2018 to October 2019, were collected according to the following inclusion criteria: mild to moderate dento-alveolar discrepancy (1.5–6.5 mm); Class I canine and molar relationship; full permanent dentition (excluding third molars); both arches treated only using Comprehensive Package by Invisalign system; treatment plan including IPR. Pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) digital models (.stl files), created from an iTero scan, were collected from all selected patients. The OrthoCAD digital software was used to measure tooth mesiodistal width in upper and lower arches before (T0) and at the end of treatment (T1) before any refinement. The widest mesio-distal diameter was measured for each tooth excluding molars by “Diagnostic” OrthoCAD tool. The total amount of IPR performed during treatment was obtained comparing the sum of mesio-distal widths of all measured teeth at T0 and T1. Significant T1–T0 differences were tested with dependent sample t-test (P < 0.05). Results In the upper arch, IPR was digitally planned on average for 0.62 mm while in the lower arch was on average for 1.92 mm. As for the amount of enamel actually removed after IPR performing, it was on average 0.62 mm in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the mean of IPR carried out was 1.93 mm. The difference between planned IPR and performed IPR is described: this difference was on average 0.00 mm in the upper arch and 0.01 in the lower arch. Conclusions The amount of enamel removed in vivo corresponded with the amount of IPR planned by the Orthodontist using ClinCheck software.

show abstract

“…These discs have an advantage of better visual access. Also, Gazzani et al [ 9 ] reported in their study that this system is more efficient in enamel reduction and also reduces the chair time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinicians, over the years, have propagated various methods to carry out this procedure, out of which, the ones that can be deemed most common are manual abrasive strips, diamond-coated segmented discs, rotating diamond burs and mechanical oscillating abrasive strips [ 6 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of temperature rise in the pulp during various IPR techniques—an in vivo study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Non-extraction treatment protocol has gained a lot of popularity over extraction for orthodontic treatment. Interproximal enamel reduction is one such method that makes it possible to do orthodontic treatment without extractions. This procedure, which can be done by various techniques, leads to a rise in the temperature of the pulp of the teeth. Previously, studies have been done which have evaluated the temperature changes inside the pulp chamber of extracted teeth, during interproximal enamel reduction. However, no documented literature exists that has evaluated these changes in the live pulp of the teeth whilst interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) is being performed. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the temperature changes inside the live pulp of the teeth during various interproximal enamel reduction techniques in vivo. Aims Evaluation of temperature rise in the pulp during various interproximal enamel reduction techniques, done in vivo. Material and method The study was performed on patients for whom extraction of premolars had been advised for their orthodontic treatment. Fifty-one premolar teeth were randomly divided into three groups of IPR, i.e. using airotor and bur, handheld metal strip and orthodontic IPR kit (oscillating system). IPR was performed on the mesial and distal sides after access opening, temperature change was recorded during IPR and the readings were compared. The Shapiro-Wilk test was utilized for checking whether the data satisfied the requirement of normal distribution. Results The highest temperature rise was seen in group 1 in which interproximal enamel reduction was performed using airotor and bur. The minimum temperature rise was observed in group 2 in which interproximal enamel reduction was done using the handheld metal strip, whereas the temperature rise observed in group 3, in which interproximal enamel reduction was done using IPR kit, was between the range of group 1 and group 3. The temperature change was in the following order—group 1 (2.08 °C) > group 3 (1.22 °C) > group 2 (0.52 °C). Conclusion None of the methods used to perform interproximal enamel reduction caused a temperature increase more than 5.5 °C, beyond which pulp necrosis may occur. Therefore, all three methods used in the study for IPR were found to be safe.

show abstract

Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: oscillating versus manual strips

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

Enamel interproximal reduction during treatment with clear aligners: digital planning versus OrthoCAD analysis

Evaluation of temperature rise in the pulp during various IPR techniques—an in vivo study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About