Scanning electron microscopic examination of enamel surface after fixed orthodontic treatment: In-vivo study

Sessa, Tijana; Civovic, Jelena; Pajevic, Tina; Juloski, Jovana; Beloica, Miloš; Pavlović, Vladimir; Glišić, Branislav

doi:10.2298/sarh1202022s

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reestablishment of the original dental enamel characteristics is a goal of any orthodontist at the end of treatment (BISHARA et al, 1994;SESSA et al, 2012). Different methods, such as tungsten carbide burs at low or high speed, Arkansas stone, green stones, diamond burs, steel burs, hand instruments, ultrasonic tools and laser, Soft-lex discs, have been described regarding the removal of the remaining composite resin adhered to the tooth after bracket debonding, although controversies exist regarding the methods that are most efficient and least damaging to the enamel (GWINNET; GORELICK, 1979;RETEIF;DENYS, 1979; ZACHRISSON; ARTHUN, 1979;CAMPBELL, 1995;ZARRINIA et al, 1995;RYF et al, 2012;JANISZEWSKA-OLSZOWSKA et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the orthodontist's main concerns after debonding fixed appliances is to reestablish the original smoothness of the enamel surface and to perform procedures that would cause the least amount of enamel loss (BISHARA et al, 1994;SESSA et al, 2012). Removal of the remaining composite from tooth surfaces may damage the external layer of the enamel (MAHDAVIE et al, 2014), which presents higher mineral content than do the deeper layers (KARAN et al, 2010;PONT et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enamel loss and superficial aspect during bonding and debonding of metallic brackets

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:To evaluate the cumulative enamel loss during bonding and debonding procedures of orthodontic metallic brackets and to analyze the enamel superficial roughness. Forty-seven maxillary first premolars were obtained for quantitative and qualitative analysis. For quantitative analysis, forty premolars were weighed at each stage of treatment and the equivalent thickness of enamel loss was measured. The amount of tooth mass loss in each stage was divided by the density value to obtain the corresponding enamel volume lost. Subsequently, these volumes were divided by a circular area with a diameter of 7 mm, thus obtaining the equivalent thickness of enamel loss. They were assessed under the following conditions: as sound enamel, after acid conditioning, following the removal of residual resin composite, after final polishing with high or low-speed, and with or without water refrigeration. A rugosimeter was used to obtain a graphic registration of the enamel superficial roughness before and after acid conditioning. The data were analyzed with the Quantikov software and the Shapiro Wilk's and Wilcoxon statistical tests were used to evaluate enamel superficial roughness. The one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni Post-Hoc tests were used to analyze the amount of enamel loss. For qualitative analysis, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of the enamel surfaces was performed on seven premolars, one in each step. Acid conditioning significantly increased enamel surface roughness (p<0.01). Based on the dental mass weighed after each stage of evaluation, enamel loss was statistically significant in all stages (p<0.01). However, when the 4 different final polishing methods were compared, no statistically significant differences were registered regarding loss of mineralized structure (p=0.72). The SEM analysis revealed that the tungsten-carbide bur with water refrigeration and lowspeed rubber points caused less damage to the enamel. The greatest amount of enamel loss was due to acid conditioning. The losses relative to abrasion with composite removal or after the 4 polishing protocols were similar. Finally, none of the enamel surfaces was restored to their original aspects after bonding and debonding metallic brackets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enamel loss and superficial aspect during bonding and debonding of metallic brackets

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Enamel surface index (ESI) by Zachrisson and Årthun [ 3 ], later used by Pont et al [ 20 ], as well as by Sessa et al [ 21 ]:…”

Section: Addendamentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Orthodontic Debonding and Adhesive Removal on the Enamel – Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives – a Systematic Review

Janiszewska‐Olszowska

Szatkiewicz

Tomkowski

et al. 2014

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After orthodontic treatment, brackets are debonded and residual adhesive is removed, causing iatrogenic enamel damage. The aim of this study was to review the methods of orthodontic adhesive removal, find clear evidence, and provide a rationale for this procedure.A literature search was performed in PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences, Scopus, Cochrane, Google, and Google Scholar using keywords: orthodontic adhesive removal, orthodontic debonding, orthodontic clean-up. Studies concerning human enamel roughness or loss from debonding and adhesive removal were considered. Forty-four full-text articles were analyzed and 3 were rejected after detailed reading; finally 41 papers were included.Fifteen qualitative studies, 13 studies based on indices of enamel surface, and 13 quantitative studies were found. No meta-analysis could be performed due to a lack of homogenous quantitative evidence. The most popular tools were tungsten carbide burs, which were faster and more effective than Sof-Lex discs, ultrasonic tools, hand instruments, rubbers, or composite burs. They remove a substantial layer of enamel and roughen its surface, but are less destructive than Arkansas stones, green stones, diamond burs, steel burs, and lasers. Multi-step Sof-Lex discs and pumice slurry are the most predictable enamel polishing tools.Arkansas stones, green stones, diamond burs, steel burs, and lasers should not be used for adhesive removal. The use of tungsten carbide bur requires multistep polishing. Further efforts should be made to find tools and methods for complete removal of adhesive remnants, minimizing enamel loss and achieving a smooth surface.

show abstract

“…Conversely, retention of all resin on the tooth (ARI = 3), such as occurred 60.1 % of the time with the Venus Diamond composite, could be clinically advantageous compared with debonding with the concomitant removal of enamel fragments, which damages tooth surfaces. A significant correlation exists between residual adhesive and the surface appearance after cleanup [45]. Bond failure at the enameladhesive interface was suggested to be an advantage, because it reduced the amount of residual adhesive, the need for a rotary instrument for cleanup and therefore, the incidence of subsequent iatrogenic injury [45].…”

Section: Table 2 Frequency Distributions Of the Adhesive Remnant Indementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A significant correlation exists between residual adhesive and the surface appearance after cleanup [45]. Bond failure at the enameladhesive interface was suggested to be an advantage, because it reduced the amount of residual adhesive, the need for a rotary instrument for cleanup and therefore, the incidence of subsequent iatrogenic injury [45]. However, these scores depend not only on the adhesive bond strength but also on many other factors, including bracket base design, etching procedures, and adhesive type [46].…”

Section: Table 2 Frequency Distributions Of the Adhesive Remnant Indementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of shear strength of brackets with different dental composites and enamel roughness

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scanning electron microscopic examination of enamel surface after fixed orthodontic treatment: In-vivo study

Abstract: Most bond failures took place at enamel-adhesive interface. ARItooth was a predictor to enamel surface damage. The type of material did not affect enamel surface damage.

Cited by 19 publications

References 27 publications

Enamel loss and superficial aspect during bonding and debonding of metallic brackets

Enamel loss and superficial aspect during bonding and debonding of metallic brackets

Effect of Orthodontic Debonding and Adhesive Removal on the Enamel – Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives – a Systematic Review

Evaluation of shear strength of brackets with different dental composites and enamel roughness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About