Comparative evaluation of enamel surface smoothness and operating time after debonding using four remnant adhesive removal techniques—An in vitro study

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
L. Mohammed, I. Abdullah, Arkan Muslim Al Azzawi, H. Hasan, K. Abeas
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of enamel surface smoothness and operating time after debonding using four remnant adhesive removal techniques—An in vitro study","authors":"L. Mohammed, I. Abdullah, Arkan Muslim Al Azzawi, H. Hasan, K. Abeas","doi":"10.4103/jioh.jioh_102_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To compare and evaluate the effect of using four remnant adhesive removal techniques after bracket debonding on enamel surface smoothness and to assess the operating time spent in each one. Materials and Methods: Orthodontic adhesive material was removed from the buccal surface of 40 maxillary premolars after bracket debonding with four techniques as 10 teeth per each one: TCG = 10; TCPG = 10; EFG = 10; and EFPG = 10. The operating time required for the completion of each technique was recorded in seconds using a stopwatch, and the mean values of it were statistically calculated; ANOVA and least significant difference tests for means and significant difference of it were done. The enamel surface of two samples from each group in addition to the control group was evaluated by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and Enamel Damage Index (EDI) was used for assessing enamel surface damage by using ImageJ software. Results: Depending on the SEM evaluation and EDI, the results are as follows: EFPG was smooth enamel surface; EFG was an acceptable surface smoothness with very fine scratches; TCPG was surface with slightly coarse scratches, whereas TCG was surface with sever roughness and coarse scratches that can be seen by a naked eye. The operating time for cleanup with EFG was the lowest value among the four techniques (22.116 s) and significantly (P < 0.05) shorter than the TCPG and EFPG. Conclusions: The enhance finishing and polishing systems were considered as efficient techniques for removing the remnant adhesive materials after bracket debonding leaving a smooth surface with little or no scratches with the shorter operating time in EFG among the four techniques, whereas TCG was the worst one as it left the enamel surface with wide, deep grooves and scratches, and it is advised to stop and avoid using it anymore.","PeriodicalId":16138,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Oral Health","volume":"14 1","pages":"500 - 508"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Oral Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_102_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare and evaluate the effect of using four remnant adhesive removal techniques after bracket debonding on enamel surface smoothness and to assess the operating time spent in each one. Materials and Methods: Orthodontic adhesive material was removed from the buccal surface of 40 maxillary premolars after bracket debonding with four techniques as 10 teeth per each one: TCG = 10; TCPG = 10; EFG = 10; and EFPG = 10. The operating time required for the completion of each technique was recorded in seconds using a stopwatch, and the mean values of it were statistically calculated; ANOVA and least significant difference tests for means and significant difference of it were done. The enamel surface of two samples from each group in addition to the control group was evaluated by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and Enamel Damage Index (EDI) was used for assessing enamel surface damage by using ImageJ software. Results: Depending on the SEM evaluation and EDI, the results are as follows: EFPG was smooth enamel surface; EFG was an acceptable surface smoothness with very fine scratches; TCPG was surface with slightly coarse scratches, whereas TCG was surface with sever roughness and coarse scratches that can be seen by a naked eye. The operating time for cleanup with EFG was the lowest value among the four techniques (22.116 s) and significantly (P < 0.05) shorter than the TCPG and EFPG. Conclusions: The enhance finishing and polishing systems were considered as efficient techniques for removing the remnant adhesive materials after bracket debonding leaving a smooth surface with little or no scratches with the shorter operating time in EFG among the four techniques, whereas TCG was the worst one as it left the enamel surface with wide, deep grooves and scratches, and it is advised to stop and avoid using it anymore.
四种残余黏合剂去除技术对脱粘后牙釉质表面光滑度及操作时间的比较评价-体外研究
目的:比较评价托槽脱粘后4种残余粘接剂去除技术对牙釉质表面光滑度的影响,并评价每种技术的操作时间。材料与方法:采用4种技术,每10颗牙10颗,从40颗上颌前磨牙的颊面去除正畸粘接剂材料,TCG = 10;TCPG = 10;Efg = 10;EFPG = 10。用秒表记录每道工序完成所需的操作时间,以秒为单位,并统计计算其平均值;对其均值和显著性差异进行方差分析和最小显著性差异检验。采用扫描电镜(SEM)对每组和对照组各2个样品的牙釉质表面进行评价,采用ImageJ软件对牙釉质表面损伤程度进行评价,采用珐琅损伤指数(EDI)。结果:经扫描电镜(SEM)和电子能谱(EDI)分析,EFPG牙釉质表面光滑;EFG是一个可以接受的表面光滑度,有非常细微的划痕;TCPG为轻度粗糙划痕表面,TCG为肉眼可见的严重粗糙划痕表面。EFG清理时间为22.116 s,明显短于TCPG和EFPG (P < 0.05)。结论:强化整理和抛光系统是去除托槽脱粘后残余粘接剂的有效技术,在四种技术中,EFG操作时间较短,表面光滑,几乎没有划痕,而TCG是最差的技术,其牙釉质表面留下宽而深的沟槽和划痕,建议停止使用并避免再使用。
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 International Oral Health
Journal of International Oral Health Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: It is a journal aimed for research, scientific facts and details covering all specialties of dentistry with a good determination for exploring and sharing the knowledge in the medical and dental fraternity. The scope is therefore huge covering almost all streams of dentistry - starting from original studies, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, very unique case reports. Our journal appreciates research articles pertaining with advancement of dentistry. Journal scope is not limited to these subjects and is more wider covering all specialities of dentistry follows: Preventive and Community Dentistry (Dental Public Health) Endodontics Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (also called Oral Surgery) Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics Periodontology (also called Periodontics) Pediatric Dentistry (also called Pedodontics) Prosthodontics (also called Prosthetic Dentistry) Oral Medicine Special Needs Dentistry (also called Special Care Dentistry) Oral Biology Forensic Odontology Geriatric Dentistry or Geriodontics Implantology Laser and Aesthetic Dentistry.
×
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