Comparison of Enamel Roughness and Calcium Release between Manual and Mechanical Stripping with and without Polishing after Demineralization.

Q3 Dentistry
Frontiers in Dentistry Pub Date : 2026-02-25 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.18502/fid.v23i10.21495
Negar Asgarian, Elham Ahmadi, Farzaneh Sadeghi Mahounak, Mohammad Javad Kharrazi Fard, Mohammad Sadegh Ahmad Akhoundi
{"title":"Comparison of Enamel Roughness and Calcium Release between Manual and Mechanical Stripping with and without Polishing after Demineralization.","authors":"Negar Asgarian, Elham Ahmadi, Farzaneh Sadeghi Mahounak, Mohammad Javad Kharrazi Fard, Mohammad Sadegh Ahmad Akhoundi","doi":"10.18502/fid.v23i10.21495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> Proximal enamel stripping is one way to create space in orthodontic treatments that leaves grooves on the enamel surface and predispose teeth to caries. The aim of this study was to compare the two common stripping systems and the effect of polishing after the stripping process on the level of surface roughness. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Twenty-five extracted teeth were randomly divided into five groups:untreated control (C), mechanical stripping (Sn), mechanical stripping and polishing (Sp), manual stripping (Dn), manual stripping and polishing (Dp). Mechanical stripping used a SWISS denta care Quality oscillating system, manual stripping used Dentaurum hand tapes, and polishing used Soflex disks. Teeth underwent pH-cycling and the amount of released calcium was measured by spectrometry. Samples were examined under atomic force microscopy (AFM) before and after demineralization. Baseline and post-demineralization surface roughness values (Ra, Rq, Rz) were calculated. Finally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were obtained from two samples of each group. data analysis was done by One-way ANOVA. P-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. <b>Results:</b> There was no significant difference between the stripping methods in terms of surface roughness parameters, but there was a significant difference between the polished and unpolished groups (P<0.05). Calcium release was significantly lower in the Sp group compared to the other groups (P<0.05). In SEM images, the least amount enamel damage was related to the Sp group. <b>Conclusion:</b> Unlike stripping systems, polishing is considerably useful in decreasing enamel roughness. Totally, mechanical stripping and polishing has shown the best consequences on enamel structure.</p>","PeriodicalId":12445,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dentistry","volume":"23 ","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13428504/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v23i10.21495","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Proximal enamel stripping is one way to create space in orthodontic treatments that leaves grooves on the enamel surface and predispose teeth to caries. The aim of this study was to compare the two common stripping systems and the effect of polishing after the stripping process on the level of surface roughness. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five extracted teeth were randomly divided into five groups:untreated control (C), mechanical stripping (Sn), mechanical stripping and polishing (Sp), manual stripping (Dn), manual stripping and polishing (Dp). Mechanical stripping used a SWISS denta care Quality oscillating system, manual stripping used Dentaurum hand tapes, and polishing used Soflex disks. Teeth underwent pH-cycling and the amount of released calcium was measured by spectrometry. Samples were examined under atomic force microscopy (AFM) before and after demineralization. Baseline and post-demineralization surface roughness values (Ra, Rq, Rz) were calculated. Finally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were obtained from two samples of each group. data analysis was done by One-way ANOVA. P-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was no significant difference between the stripping methods in terms of surface roughness parameters, but there was a significant difference between the polished and unpolished groups (P<0.05). Calcium release was significantly lower in the Sp group compared to the other groups (P<0.05). In SEM images, the least amount enamel damage was related to the Sp group. Conclusion: Unlike stripping systems, polishing is considerably useful in decreasing enamel roughness. Totally, mechanical stripping and polishing has shown the best consequences on enamel structure.

脱矿后手工剥离与机械剥离牙釉质粗糙度及钙释放量的比较。
目的:近端牙釉质剥离是在正畸治疗中创造空间的一种方法,在牙釉质表面留下凹槽,易导致牙齿龋齿。本研究的目的是比较两种常见的剥离系统和剥离过程后抛光对表面粗糙度水平的影响。材料与方法:25颗拔牙随机分为5组:未处理对照组(C)、机械剥离组(Sn)、机械剥离抛光组(Sp)、手工剥离组(Dn)、手工剥离抛光组(Dp)。机械剥离使用SWISS齿科护理质量振荡系统,手动剥离使用Dentaurum手带,抛光使用Soflex光盘。牙齿进行ph循环,用光谱法测定钙的释放量。在原子力显微镜(AFM)下对脱矿前后的样品进行检测。计算基线和脱矿后表面粗糙度值(Ra, Rq, Rz)。最后,分别对两组样品进行扫描电镜(SEM)成像。数据分析采用单因素方差分析。结果:抛光组和未抛光组在表面粗糙度参数上差异不显著(p值)。结论:与抛光系统不同,抛光在降低牙釉质粗糙度方面非常有用。总的来说,机械剥离和抛光对牙釉质结构的影响是最好的。
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
Frontiers in Dentistry
Frontiers in Dentistry Dentistry-General Dentistry
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 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