A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding
Introduction: At the completion of treatment, the orthodontic practitioner’s goal is to effectively remove all traces of adhesive and return enamel to its initial state. With the advent of new polishing systems being released each year, there may be one product that is superior to others. Aim: The p...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Saudi Dental Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905221001103 |
| _version_ | 1818383936067207168 |
|---|---|
| author | Elizabeth A. Melvin Qingzhao Yu Xiaoming Xu Camille G. Laird Paul C. Armbruster Richard W. Ballard |
| author_facet | Elizabeth A. Melvin Qingzhao Yu Xiaoming Xu Camille G. Laird Paul C. Armbruster Richard W. Ballard |
| author_sort | Elizabeth A. Melvin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction: At the completion of treatment, the orthodontic practitioner’s goal is to effectively remove all traces of adhesive and return enamel to its initial state. With the advent of new polishing systems being released each year, there may be one product that is superior to others. Aim: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of new polishing systems (in the last 5–10 years) used in general dentistry on enamel surface roughness following debond utilizing profilometery and scanning electron microscopy and compare them to established orthodontic polishing systems results. Methods: Fifty-two mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to one of five test groups (N = 10) and two incisors (untreated enamel) were used for profilometer and scanning electron microscopy analysis at the end of testing. After bracket removal, the teeth were polished using traditional polishing products (Komet H48L bur, Reliance ‘Renew’ point) and newer polishing products (Coltene Spiral Composite Plus Polisher, Ultradent Jiffy Composite Polishing Spiral or 3M Sof-Lex™ Diamond Polishing System). The results were evaluated using a profilometer and scanning electron microscopy images. Results: The results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that the mean change in enamel surface roughness was not statistically different both in the traditional and novel groups. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test found that there was no statistically significant difference in the change in enamel surface roughness between instrument groups. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in enamel surface roughness after polishing between traditional orthodontic polishing systems and the selected novel polishing systems. SEM analysis revealed similar findings. This supports previous research suggesting that a wide variety of polishing systems or none at all, may be used to restore enamel smoothness after removal of orthodontic appliances. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T03:14:17Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b3a628058b1f428894a49144a84bc9fb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1013-9052 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T03:14:17Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Saudi Dental Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-b3a628058b1f428894a49144a84bc9fb2022-12-21T23:19:11ZengElsevierSaudi Dental Journal1013-90522021-12-01338877883A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debondingElizabeth A. Melvin0Qingzhao Yu1Xiaoming Xu2Camille G. Laird3Paul C. Armbruster4Richard W. Ballard5Private Practice of Orthodontics, 1540 Rock Springs Road, Smyrna, TN 37167, USALSU Health Sciences Center School of Public Health, 2020 Gravier Street, Department of Statistics, New Orleans, LA 70112, USALSU Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry, 1100 Florida Ave, Department of Prosthodontics, New Orleans, LA 70119, USALSU Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry, 1100 Florida Ave, Department of Orthodontics, New Orleans, LA 70119, USALSU Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry, 1100 Florida Ave, Department of Orthodontics, New Orleans, LA 70119, USALSU Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry, 1100 Florida Ave, Department of Orthodontics, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA; Corresponding author.Introduction: At the completion of treatment, the orthodontic practitioner’s goal is to effectively remove all traces of adhesive and return enamel to its initial state. With the advent of new polishing systems being released each year, there may be one product that is superior to others. Aim: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of new polishing systems (in the last 5–10 years) used in general dentistry on enamel surface roughness following debond utilizing profilometery and scanning electron microscopy and compare them to established orthodontic polishing systems results. Methods: Fifty-two mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to one of five test groups (N = 10) and two incisors (untreated enamel) were used for profilometer and scanning electron microscopy analysis at the end of testing. After bracket removal, the teeth were polished using traditional polishing products (Komet H48L bur, Reliance ‘Renew’ point) and newer polishing products (Coltene Spiral Composite Plus Polisher, Ultradent Jiffy Composite Polishing Spiral or 3M Sof-Lex™ Diamond Polishing System). The results were evaluated using a profilometer and scanning electron microscopy images. Results: The results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that the mean change in enamel surface roughness was not statistically different both in the traditional and novel groups. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test found that there was no statistically significant difference in the change in enamel surface roughness between instrument groups. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in enamel surface roughness after polishing between traditional orthodontic polishing systems and the selected novel polishing systems. SEM analysis revealed similar findings. This supports previous research suggesting that a wide variety of polishing systems or none at all, may be used to restore enamel smoothness after removal of orthodontic appliances.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905221001103DebondingEnamel polishingResin removal |
| spellingShingle | Elizabeth A. Melvin Qingzhao Yu Xiaoming Xu Camille G. Laird Paul C. Armbruster Richard W. Ballard A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding Saudi Dental Journal Debonding Enamel polishing Resin removal |
| title | A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding |
| title_full | A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding |
| title_short | A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding |
| title_sort | comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding |
| topic | Debonding Enamel polishing Resin removal |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905221001103 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT elizabethamelvin acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT qingzhaoyu acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT xiaomingxu acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT camilleglaird acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT paulcarmbruster acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT richardwballard acomparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT elizabethamelvin comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT qingzhaoyu comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT xiaomingxu comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT camilleglaird comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT paulcarmbruster comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding AT richardwballard comparisonoftraditionalorthodonticpolishingsystemswithcompositepolishingsystemsfollowingorthodonticdebonding |