Comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with novel non-orthodontic methods for residual adhesive removal.

Q Medicine
Australian Orthodontic Journal Pub Date : 2016-05-01
John Andrews, Joseph L Hagan, Paul C Armbruster, Richard W Ballard
{"title":"Comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with novel non-orthodontic methods for residual adhesive removal.","authors":"John Andrews,&nbsp;Joseph L Hagan,&nbsp;Paul C Armbruster,&nbsp;Richard W Ballard","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Following the debonding of orthodontic brackets, the removal of residual adhesive from the enamel surface is required. Published adhesive removal protocols present conflicting advice.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The present study evaluated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with non-traditional orthodontic polishing systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The facial aspects of 35 extracted human incisor teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness prior to the bonding of orthodontic brackets. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with a 12-fluted titanium carbide bur. The teeth were randomly divided into seven groups (N = 5 per group) and the enamel surface was polished with one of seven products. All samples were re-scanned for surface roughness and subjectively evaluated via SEM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in enamel surface roughness between the groups when compared using surface profilometry. Visual observations from the SEM evaluations demonstrated differences in the enamel surface at the microscopic level that were not detected by profilometric analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study found no statistically significant difference in mean enamel smoothness change from pretreatment to post-treatment between the seven polishing methods studied via profilometer surface reading measurements. An SEM analysis showed visual differences in enamel striations viewed at 1000x magnification in a comparison of traditional versus non- traditional polishing methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":55417,"journal":{"name":"Australian Orthodontic Journal","volume":"32 1","pages":"41-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Orthodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Following the debonding of orthodontic brackets, the removal of residual adhesive from the enamel surface is required. Published adhesive removal protocols present conflicting advice.

Aims: The present study evaluated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with non-traditional orthodontic polishing systems.

Methods: The facial aspects of 35 extracted human incisor teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness prior to the bonding of orthodontic brackets. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with a 12-fluted titanium carbide bur. The teeth were randomly divided into seven groups (N = 5 per group) and the enamel surface was polished with one of seven products. All samples were re-scanned for surface roughness and subjectively evaluated via SEM.

Results: There was no significant difference in enamel surface roughness between the groups when compared using surface profilometry. Visual observations from the SEM evaluations demonstrated differences in the enamel surface at the microscopic level that were not detected by profilometric analysis.

Conclusions: The present study found no statistically significant difference in mean enamel smoothness change from pretreatment to post-treatment between the seven polishing methods studied via profilometer surface reading measurements. An SEM analysis showed visual differences in enamel striations viewed at 1000x magnification in a comparison of traditional versus non- traditional polishing methods.

传统正畸抛光系统与新型非正畸方法去除残余粘接剂的比较。
背景:正畸托槽脱粘后,需要清除牙釉质表面残留的粘接剂。已发表的粘合剂去除方案提出了相互矛盾的建议。目的:本研究评估传统正畸抛光系统对牙釉质脱粘后表面粗糙度的影响。方法:在正畸托槽粘接前,用表面轮廓仪扫描35颗人切牙的面部表面粗糙度。脱粘后,用12槽碳化钛钎去除残留的胶粘剂。将牙齿随机分为7组(每组N = 5),用7种产品中的一种抛光牙釉质表面。所有样品都重新扫描表面粗糙度,并通过扫描电镜进行主观评估。结果:牙釉质表面粗糙度比较,两组牙釉质表面粗糙度差异无统计学意义。从扫描电镜评估的视觉观察表明,在微观水平上,牙釉质表面的差异是轮廓分析没有检测到的。结论:本研究发现,通过profilometer表面读数测量,7种抛光方法的釉质光滑度从预处理到处理后的平均变化无统计学差异。扫描电镜分析显示,在1000倍放大镜下,传统和非传统抛光方法在牙釉质条纹上的视觉差异。
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
Australian Orthodontic Journal
Australian Orthodontic Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.48
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信