Differences of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with tungsten carbide, steel bur, and adhesive removing plier.

Q2 Dentistry
Journal of Orthodontic Science Pub Date : 2025-09-29 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jos.jos_140_24
Steffi Tanusetiawan, Eddy H Habar, Zilal I Paramma, Ardiansyah S Pawinru, Eka Erwansyah, M R Baharuddin
{"title":"Differences of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with tungsten carbide, steel bur, and adhesive removing plier.","authors":"Steffi Tanusetiawan, Eddy H Habar, Zilal I Paramma, Ardiansyah S Pawinru, Eka Erwansyah, M R Baharuddin","doi":"10.4103/jos.jos_140_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>One of the goals of orthodontic treatment is to restore the enamel surface to its pretreatment condition. The objective of this research is to compare the differences in enamel surfaces after adhesive removal using tungsten carbide burs, steel burs, and adhesive-removing pliers.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total sample of 40 extracted premolars were randomly divided into four groups based on the adhesive removal method: control, tungsten carbide bur, steel bur, and adhesive-removing plier. The enamel surface condition was scanned using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Mann-Whitney test was performed to evaluate the differences in enamel surfaces between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Adhesive removal using tungsten carbide burs and steel burs showed (none) no statistically significant differences (<i>P</i> > 0.05). However, statistically significant differences were observed between the tungsten carbide bur and adhesive-removing plier groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05), as well as between the steel bur and adhesive-removing plier groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Significant differences were also found between the tungsten carbide bur and control groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05), the steel bur and control groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05), and the adhesive-removing plier and control groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tungsten carbide bur demonstrated the best enamel surface condition and less adhesive remnant compared to the steel bur and adhesive-removing plier.</p>","PeriodicalId":16604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontic Science","volume":"14 ","pages":"35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12558395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_140_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: One of the goals of orthodontic treatment is to restore the enamel surface to its pretreatment condition. The objective of this research is to compare the differences in enamel surfaces after adhesive removal using tungsten carbide burs, steel burs, and adhesive-removing pliers.

Material and methods: A total sample of 40 extracted premolars were randomly divided into four groups based on the adhesive removal method: control, tungsten carbide bur, steel bur, and adhesive-removing plier. The enamel surface condition was scanned using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Mann-Whitney test was performed to evaluate the differences in enamel surfaces between the groups.

Results: Adhesive removal using tungsten carbide burs and steel burs showed (none) no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05). However, statistically significant differences were observed between the tungsten carbide bur and adhesive-removing plier groups (P < 0.05), as well as between the steel bur and adhesive-removing plier groups (P < 0.05). Significant differences were also found between the tungsten carbide bur and control groups (P < 0.05), the steel bur and control groups (P < 0.05), and the adhesive-removing plier and control groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Tungsten carbide bur demonstrated the best enamel surface condition and less adhesive remnant compared to the steel bur and adhesive-removing plier.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

碳化钨、钢钎、去胶钳对托架脱粘、去胶后釉质表面的差异。
正畸治疗的目标之一是使牙釉质表面恢复到治疗前的状态。本研究的目的是比较使用碳化钨毛刺、钢毛刺和除胶钳去胶后牙釉质表面的差异。材料与方法:选取40颗拔除的前磨牙,根据拔除方法随机分为对照组、碳化钨钉组、钢钉组和拔除钳组。用扫描电镜(SEM)观察牙釉质表面状况。采用Mann-Whitney试验评价各组牙釉质表面差异。结果:碳化钨毛刺与钢毛刺去除黏合剂效果无统计学差异(P < 0.05)。而碳化钨钎焊组与去胶钳组、钢钎焊组与去胶钳组间的差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。碳化钨钎焊组与对照组、钢钎焊组与对照组、去胶钳组与对照组差异均显著(P < 0.05)。结论:与钢钎和去粘钳相比,碳化钨钎具有较好的牙釉质表面状态,且残粘较少。
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
Journal of Orthodontic Science
Journal of Orthodontic Science Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书