Evaluation of Enamel Surface Roughness and Volumetric Change after Resin Remnant Removal following Orthodontic Bracket Debonding.

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Oral health & preventive dentistry Pub Date : 2025-07-04 DOI:10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2117

Bora Korkut, Kadir Emre Uzun, Cigdem Hacıali, Tuna Unal, Dilek Tagtekin

{"title":"Evaluation of Enamel Surface Roughness and Volumetric Change after Resin Remnant Removal following Orthodontic Bracket Debonding.","authors":"Bora Korkut, Kadir Emre Uzun, Cigdem Hacıali, Tuna Unal, Dilek Tagtekin","doi":"10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To evaluate surface roughness and volumetric change of enamel after using different resin remnant removal (RRR) techniques, following orthodontic bracket debonding.Materials and methods: Metal orthodontic brackets (Mini Twin Brackets, RMO) were bonded to 60 human (central or lateral) labial mid-third surfaces, and debonded 24 h after by a single orthodontist. The remaining composites were completely removed with the fluorescence light guidance by the D-Light-Pro led curing unit (GC/detection mode). The removal procedures were performed without magnification (n = 30) or with 20× magnification/5500 K illumination by a dental microscope (OMS2000, Zumax) (n = 30). Three RRR techniques were used: 12-bladed carbide bur (Horico), red-banded diamond bur (Horico), SofLex Disc (medium/40 μm, fine/24 μm, and superfine/8 µm; 3M). Surface changes were evaluated visually through microscope photographs by enamel surface index (ESI) and volumetrically by overlapping the three-dimensional images of a laser scanner device (LAS-20, SD-Mechatronik) in the Geomagic Design X (3D Systems) software. The deemed significance was set at 0.050 for the statistical analyses.Results: A positive, strong correlation was found between visual and volumetric change scores (P 0.001). Lesser volumetric loss (P 0.001) and roughness (P = 0.009) were observed for all RRR techniques when the magnification was used. Volumetric loss (mm3) by diamond bur was significantly the highest [1.85(1-3)a], followed by SofLex Disc [1.1(1-1)c] and carbide bur [0.59(0-1)b](P 0.001). Visual surface roughness scores (Ra) were significantly higher for diamond bur [4.5(4-5)b](P 0.001), followed by carbide bur 2(1-3)a and SofLex Disc 1(1-2)a.Conclusion: Surface roughness should always be assessed together with the volumetric enamel loss for the selection of RRR technique. Red-banded diamond bur should not be used for RRR. Even though the least surface roughness can be provided by SofLex Disc system, it can provide more intact enamel surface loss than the carbide bur. Magnification was considered useful for the RRR to provide a smoother surface while better preserving the intact enamel tissue.","PeriodicalId":19696,"journal":{"name":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","volume":"23 ","pages":"355-364"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2117","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate surface roughness and volumetric change of enamel after using different resin remnant removal (RRR) techniques, following orthodontic bracket debonding.

Materials and methods: Metal orthodontic brackets (Mini Twin Brackets, RMO) were bonded to 60 human (central or lateral) labial mid-third surfaces, and debonded 24 h after by a single orthodontist. The remaining composites were completely removed with the fluorescence light guidance by the D-Light-Pro led curing unit (GC/detection mode). The removal procedures were performed without magnification (n = 30) or with 20× magnification/5500 K illumination by a dental microscope (OMS2000, Zumax) (n = 30). Three RRR techniques were used: 12-bladed carbide bur (Horico), red-banded diamond bur (Horico), SofLex Disc (medium/40 μm, fine/24 μm, and superfine/8 µm; 3M). Surface changes were evaluated visually through microscope photographs by enamel surface index (ESI) and volumetrically by overlapping the three-dimensional images of a laser scanner device (LAS-20, SD-Mechatronik) in the Geomagic Design X (3D Systems) software. The deemed significance was set at 0.050 for the statistical analyses.

Results: A positive, strong correlation was found between visual and volumetric change scores (P 0.001). Lesser volumetric loss (P 0.001) and roughness (P = 0.009) were observed for all RRR techniques when the magnification was used. Volumetric loss (mm3) by diamond bur was significantly the highest [1.85(1-3)a], followed by SofLex Disc [1.1(1-1)c] and carbide bur [0.59(0-1)b](P 0.001). Visual surface roughness scores (Ra) were significantly higher for diamond bur [4.5(4-5)b](P 0.001), followed by carbide bur 2(1-3)a and SofLex Disc 1(1-2)a.

Conclusion: Surface roughness should always be assessed together with the volumetric enamel loss for the selection of RRR technique. Red-banded diamond bur should not be used for RRR. Even though the least surface roughness can be provided by SofLex Disc system, it can provide more intact enamel surface loss than the carbide bur. Magnification was considered useful for the RRR to provide a smoother surface while better preserving the intact enamel tissue.

查看原文本刊更多论文

正畸托架脱粘后树脂残体去除后牙釉质表面粗糙度和体积变化的评价。

目的：评价不同树脂残体去除（RRR）技术在正畸托槽脱粘后牙釉质的表面粗糙度和体积变化。材料和方法：将金属正畸托槽（Mini Twin brackets， RMO）粘接在60个人（中央或外侧）唇部中三分之一表面上，并在24小时后由一名正畸医生去除粘接。在D-Light-Pro led固化装置（GC/检测模式）的荧光引导下，将剩余的复合材料完全去除。拔牙过程在无放大（n = 30）或在牙科显微镜（OMS2000, Zumax）下20倍放大/5500 K光照下进行（n = 30）。采用三种RRR技术：12刃硬质合金钎头（Horico）、红带金刚石钎头（Horico）、SofLex Disc（中/40 μm、细/24 μm和超细/8 μm）；3米)。表面变化通过显微镜照片通过釉质表面指数（ESI）进行视觉评估，并通过在Geomagic Design X （3D Systems）软件中重叠激光扫描仪设备（las20, SD-Mechatronik）的三维图像进行体积评估。统计分析的认定显著性设为0.050。结果：视力和体积变化评分呈正相关（P < 0.001）。当使用放大倍率时，所有RRR技术都观察到较小的体积损失（P 0.001）和粗糙度（P = 0.009）。金刚石钎片的体积损失（mm3）最大[1.85(1-3)a]，其次是SofLex Disc [1.1(1-1)c]和硬质合金钎片[0.59(0-1)b]（P 0.001）。金刚石钎具的视觉表面粗糙度评分（Ra）明显更高[4.5(4-5)b](P 0.001)，其次是硬质合金钎具2(1-3)a和SofLex Disc 1(1-2)a。结论：牙体表面粗糙度应与牙釉质体积损失同时进行评估，以确定RRR技术的选择。红带钻石不应用于存款准备金率。尽管SofLex Disc系统可以提供最小的表面粗糙度，但它可以提供比硬质合金钎更完整的牙釉质表面损失。放大被认为有助于RRR提供更光滑的表面，同时更好地保存完整的牙釉质组织。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Oral health & preventive dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinicians, general practitioners, teachers, researchers, and public health administrators will find this journal an indispensable source of essential, timely information about scientific progress in the fields of oral health and the prevention of caries, periodontal diseases, oral mucosal diseases, and dental trauma. Central topics, including oral hygiene, oral epidemiology, oral health promotion, and public health issues, are covered in peer-reviewed articles such as clinical and basic science research reports; reviews; invited focus articles, commentaries, and guest editorials; and symposium, workshop, and conference proceedings.