Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Enamel surface roughness after orthodontic adhesive removal: an in vitro study comparing four clearance methods

D. Raticová, M. Koťová, A. Bezrouk, L. Sala, P. Křížová, W. Urbanová, A. Leger

. 2024 ; 58 (3) : 145-151. [pub] 20240905

Status not-indexed Language English Country Turkey

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25002481

PURPOSE: Adhesive remnants removal is the last key step influencing orthodontic treatment outcomes. Four different clearance methods (CM) of orthodontic adhesive were evaluated to determine, which achieved the smoothest enamel surface in the shortest time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 75 intact premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were included, sixty had an orthodontic bracket bonded and subsequently removed, and fifteen served as the control group. Four CMs were used to clear the tooth surface of 15 premolars each: carbide bur (CB), carbide bur with titanium nitride surface treatment + fine carbide bur (CBCB), glass fiber-reinforced composite instrument (GFCB), zirconia bur + glass fiber-reinforced composite bur (ZBCB). The processing time was recorded. In ten premolars from each group, the enamel surface was evaluated by atomic force microscopy estimating mean roughness (Ra), roughness profile value (Rq), and roughness depth (Rt). Enamel Damage Index (EDI) was assessed with a scanning electron microscope on 5 remaining premolars. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in all evaluated parameters - Ra (p<0.0001), Rq (p<0.0001), and Rt (p<0.0001). GFCB exhibited the smoothest surface in all parameters. The lowest EDI exhibited teeth treated by GFCB, however, the differences were not significant. Working with GFCB took the longest time (mean 116 s), and the shortest with CBCB (mean 49 s). CONCLUSION: Using CB is the fastest clearance method, but the enamel surface roughness was highest. Clearing with a set of instruments CBCB proved to be a fast method with satisfying remaining enamel roughness.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25002481
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250123101921.0
007      
ta
008      
250117s2024 tu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.26650/eor.20241436650 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)39588479
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a tu
100    1_
$a Raticová, Denisa $u Department of Stomatology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Kralovské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Enamel surface roughness after orthodontic adhesive removal: an in vitro study comparing four clearance methods / $c D. Raticová, M. Koťová, A. Bezrouk, L. Sala, P. Křížová, W. Urbanová, A. Leger
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: Adhesive remnants removal is the last key step influencing orthodontic treatment outcomes. Four different clearance methods (CM) of orthodontic adhesive were evaluated to determine, which achieved the smoothest enamel surface in the shortest time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 75 intact premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were included, sixty had an orthodontic bracket bonded and subsequently removed, and fifteen served as the control group. Four CMs were used to clear the tooth surface of 15 premolars each: carbide bur (CB), carbide bur with titanium nitride surface treatment + fine carbide bur (CBCB), glass fiber-reinforced composite instrument (GFCB), zirconia bur + glass fiber-reinforced composite bur (ZBCB). The processing time was recorded. In ten premolars from each group, the enamel surface was evaluated by atomic force microscopy estimating mean roughness (Ra), roughness profile value (Rq), and roughness depth (Rt). Enamel Damage Index (EDI) was assessed with a scanning electron microscope on 5 remaining premolars. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in all evaluated parameters - Ra (p<0.0001), Rq (p<0.0001), and Rt (p<0.0001). GFCB exhibited the smoothest surface in all parameters. The lowest EDI exhibited teeth treated by GFCB, however, the differences were not significant. Working with GFCB took the longest time (mean 116 s), and the shortest with CBCB (mean 49 s). CONCLUSION: Using CB is the fastest clearance method, but the enamel surface roughness was highest. Clearing with a set of instruments CBCB proved to be a fast method with satisfying remaining enamel roughness.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Koťová, Magadalena $u Department of Stomatology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Kralovské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Bezrouk, Aleš $u Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Sala, Leo $u J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Křížová, Petra $u Dental Hygiene Study Programme, 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Urbanová, Wanda $u Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University in Prague, Pilsen, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Leger, Aleš $u Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University, 775 15 Olomouc, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00216001 $t European oral research $x 2651-2823 $g Roč. 58, č. 3 (2024), s. 145-151
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39588479 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250117 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250123101915 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2254598 $s 1238484
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 58 $c 3 $d 145-151 $e 20240905 $i 2651-2823 $m European oral research $n Eur Oral Res $x MED00216001
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250117

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options