-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
The Influence of Various Adhesive Systems and Polishing Methods on Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets: A Three-Dimensional In Vitro Evaluation
T. Křivková, A. Tichý, H. Tycová, J. Kučera
Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
Grantová podpora
Progres Q29/1LF
Charles University
Cooperatio 207030 Dental Medicine/LF1
Charles University
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
od 2008
Freely Accessible Science Journals
od 2008
PubMed Central
od 2008
Europe PubMed Central
od 2008
ProQuest Central
od 2008-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
od 2008-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 2008
PubMed
37512378
DOI
10.3390/ma16145107
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
A slight alteration of the enamel surface is inevitable upon debonding of orthodontic brackets, adhesive removal, and finishing/polishing. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare two adhesives and three polishing methods by measuring enamel surface roughness using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Brackets were bonded on 42 extracted human premolars using Transbond XT (Transbond group) or Fuji Ortho (Fuji group). After debracketing, adhesives were removed with a tungsten carbide bur, and surfaces were polished using Sof-Lex discs, a rotary brush with a prophylactic paste (Depural), or a prophylactic cup with two polishing pastes (n = 7 in each subgroup). Surface roughness (Sa, Sku, Sq, and Sz) was measured using CLSM and compared before treatment (T1), after debracketing and adhesive removal (T2), and after polishing (T3). The data were statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction. The time required for adhesive removal was measured and compared using a two-sample t-test. Surface roughness at T2 increased compared to T1, but the difference was significant only for the Fuji group (p < 0.01). The time required to remove Transbond XT (94.1 ± 6.8 s) was significantly higher compared to Fuji (72.1 ± 5.9 s, p < 0.0001). Polishing with Sof-Lex discs resulted in lower surface roughness compared to T1 (p = 0.018). Using Depural and polishing pastes showed no significant difference in surface roughness compared to T1, except for a significant decrease in Sa and Sq for Transbond (p = 0.043) and in Sku for Fuji (p = 0.018) after polishing with Depural. In conclusion, the removal of Transbond took significantly longer, but there were fewer residues of composite resin on the enamel surface. Sof-Lex discs decreased enamel roughness, whereas enamel morphology and roughness were similar to the pre-treatment state after polishing with polishing pastes.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc23015682
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20231020093536.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 231010s2023 sz f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.3390/ma16145107 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)37512378
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a sz
- 100 1_
- $a Křivková, Tereza $u Institute of Dental Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Kateřinská 32, 121 11 Prague, Czech Republic
- 245 14
- $a The Influence of Various Adhesive Systems and Polishing Methods on Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets: A Three-Dimensional In Vitro Evaluation / $c T. Křivková, A. Tichý, H. Tycová, J. Kučera
- 520 9_
- $a A slight alteration of the enamel surface is inevitable upon debonding of orthodontic brackets, adhesive removal, and finishing/polishing. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare two adhesives and three polishing methods by measuring enamel surface roughness using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Brackets were bonded on 42 extracted human premolars using Transbond XT (Transbond group) or Fuji Ortho (Fuji group). After debracketing, adhesives were removed with a tungsten carbide bur, and surfaces were polished using Sof-Lex discs, a rotary brush with a prophylactic paste (Depural), or a prophylactic cup with two polishing pastes (n = 7 in each subgroup). Surface roughness (Sa, Sku, Sq, and Sz) was measured using CLSM and compared before treatment (T1), after debracketing and adhesive removal (T2), and after polishing (T3). The data were statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction. The time required for adhesive removal was measured and compared using a two-sample t-test. Surface roughness at T2 increased compared to T1, but the difference was significant only for the Fuji group (p < 0.01). The time required to remove Transbond XT (94.1 ± 6.8 s) was significantly higher compared to Fuji (72.1 ± 5.9 s, p < 0.0001). Polishing with Sof-Lex discs resulted in lower surface roughness compared to T1 (p = 0.018). Using Depural and polishing pastes showed no significant difference in surface roughness compared to T1, except for a significant decrease in Sa and Sq for Transbond (p = 0.043) and in Sku for Fuji (p = 0.018) after polishing with Depural. In conclusion, the removal of Transbond took significantly longer, but there were fewer residues of composite resin on the enamel surface. Sof-Lex discs decreased enamel roughness, whereas enamel morphology and roughness were similar to the pre-treatment state after polishing with polishing pastes.
- 590 __
- $a NEINDEXOVÁNO
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Tichý, Antonín $u Institute of Dental Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Kateřinská 32, 121 11 Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000262609992
- 700 1_
- $a Tycová, Hana $u Institute of Dental Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Kateřinská 32, 121 11 Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Kučera, Josef $u Institute of Dental Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine of the Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Kateřinská 32, 121 11 Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Palackého 700/12, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000344472467
- 773 0_
- $w MED00194074 $t Materials $x 1996-1944 $g Roč. 16, č. 14 (2023)
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37512378 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20231010 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20231020093530 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1997225 $s 1202044
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2023 $b 16 $c 14 $e 20230720 $i 1996-1944 $m Materials $n Materials (Basel) $x MED00194074
- GRA __
- $a Progres Q29/1LF $p Charles University
- GRA __
- $a Cooperatio 207030 Dental Medicine/LF1 $p Charles University
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20231010