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.

Dental Hygiene Study Programme 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Medical Biophysics Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové Charles University Hradec Králové Czech Republic

Department of Stomatology 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Kralovské Vinohrady Prague Czech Republic

Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry Palacký University 775 15 Olomouc Czech Republic

Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Prague Pilsen Czech Republic

J Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997. Jul;13(4):258–69. 10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3 PubMed DOI

Zachrisson BU, Årthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1979. Feb;75(2):121–7. 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181-7 PubMed DOI

Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(2):103–10. PubMed

Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod. 1979. Jan;49(1):1–10. PubMed

Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004. Dec;126(6):717–24. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.032 PubMed DOI

Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran). 2013. Jan;10(1):82–93. PubMed PMC

Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel - current knowledge and future perspectives - a systematic review. Med Sci Monit. 2014. Oct;20:1991–2001. 10.12659/MSM.890912 PubMed DOI PMC

Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010. Nov;80(6):1081–8. 10.2319/012610-55.1 PubMed DOI PMC

Mohebi S, Ameli N, Farshadfar P. Comparison of Enamel Surface Roughness after Bracket Debonding and Resin Removal Using Three Different Methods. IJO. 2018;29:521–7.

Shah P, Sharma P, Goje SK, Kanzariya N, Parikh M. Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal-an in vitro study. Prog Orthod. 2019. May;20(1):18. 10.1186/s40510-019-0269-x PubMed DOI PMC

Brosh T, Kaufman A, Balabanovsky A, Vardimon AD. In vivo debonding strength and enamel damage in two orthodontic debonding methods. J Biomech. 2005. May;38(5):1107–13. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.025 PubMed DOI

Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. Sep;108(3):284–93. 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70023-4 PubMed DOI

Fan XC, Chen L, Huang XF. Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017. Feb;17(1):58. 10.1186/s12903-017-0349-6 PubMed DOI PMC

Webb BJ, Koch J, Hagan JL, Ballard RW, Armbruster PC. Enamel surface roughness of preferred debonding and polishing protocols. J Orthod. 2016. Mar;43(1):39–46. 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000009 PubMed DOI

Rouleau BD Jr, Marshall GW Jr, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1982. May;81(5):423–6. 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90081-1 PubMed DOI

Schuler FS, van Waes H. SEM-evaluation of enamel surfaces after removal of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Dent. 2003. Dec;16(6):390–4. PubMed

Kitahara-Céia FM, Mucha JN, Marques dos Santos PA. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. Oct;134(4):548–55. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.08.022 PubMed DOI

Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. Am J Orthod. 1977. Jun;71(6):651–65. 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90281-0 PubMed DOI

Zaher AR, Abdalla EM, Abdel Motie MA, Rehman NA, Kassem H, Athanasiou AE. Enamel colour changes after debonding using various bonding systems. J Orthod. 2012. Jun;39(2):82–8. 10.1179/1465312512Z.0000000009 PubMed DOI

Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011. Nov;140(5):696–702. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.02.027 PubMed DOI

Dumbryte I, Jonavicius T, Linkeviciene L, Linkevicius T, Peciuliene V, Malinauskas M. Enamel cracks evaluation - A method to predict tooth surface damage during the debonding. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(6):828–34. 10.4012/dmj.2015-085 PubMed DOI

Radlanski RJ. A new carbide finishing bur for bracket debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2001. Jul;62(4):296–304. 10.1007/PL00001937 PubMed DOI

Park SB, Kim GH, Ha MH. A comparison study of the effects of handpeice speed on teeth in debonding procedure. Korean J Orthod. 2004;34:83–91.

Garg R, Dixit P, Khosla T, Gupta P, Kalra H, Kumar P. Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding: A Comparative Study using Three Different Burs. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018. May;19(5):521–6. 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2293 PubMed DOI

Shafiee HA, Mohebi S, Ameli N, Omidvar R, Akbarzadeh A. Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Bracket Debonding and Composite Resin Removal by Two Types of Burs. J Dent Sch. 2015;33:210–9.

Sugsompian K, Tansalarak R, Piyapattamin T. Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation. Eur J Dent. 2020. Mar;14(2):299–305. 10.1055/s-0040-1709945 PubMed DOI PMC

Çelebi F. Mechanical Vibration and Chewing Gum Methods in Orthodontic Pain Relief. Turk J Orthod. 2022. Jun;35(2):133–8. 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2022.21091 PubMed DOI PMC

Vujkov S, Cveticanin L. Effect of mass variation on vibration properties of the tooth in drilling operation. Sci Rep. 2022. Feb;12(1):1691. 10.1038/s41598-022-05824-5 PubMed DOI PMC

Nakada N, Uchida Y, Inaba M, Kaetsu R, Shimizu N, Namura Y, et al. . Pain and removal force associated with bracket debonding: a clinical study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2021. Jul;29:e20200879. 10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0879 PubMed DOI PMC

Bavbek NC, Tuncer BB, Tortop T, Celik B. Efficacy of different methods to reduce pain during debonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2016. Nov;86(6):917–24. 10.2319/020116-88R.1 PubMed DOI PMC

Pines MS, Schulman A. Characterization of wear of tungsten carbide burs. J Am Dent Assoc. 1979. Nov;99(5):831–3. 10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0403 PubMed DOI