Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems
This study used seven different adhesive removal systems to evaluate and compare enamel surface integrity, heat generation, and time consumed during residual cement removal after de-bracketing. The sample size was 140 human premolars. Teeth were cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/20/3284 |
| _version_ | 1797574160355950592 |
|---|---|
| author | Abdullazez Almudhi Arwa Aldeeri Abdullah Abdulrahman A. Aloraini Ahmed Ibrahim M. Alomar Meshari Saad M. Alqudairi Osama Abdullah A. Alzahrani Elzahraa Eldwakhly Sarah AlMugairin |
| author_facet | Abdullazez Almudhi Arwa Aldeeri Abdullah Abdulrahman A. Aloraini Ahmed Ibrahim M. Alomar Meshari Saad M. Alqudairi Osama Abdullah A. Alzahrani Elzahraa Eldwakhly Sarah AlMugairin |
| author_sort | Abdullazez Almudhi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study used seven different adhesive removal systems to evaluate and compare enamel surface integrity, heat generation, and time consumed during residual cement removal after de-bracketing. The sample size was 140 human premolars. Teeth were cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Brackets were then debonded using bracket-removing pliers. Teeth were randomly assigned to seven groups based on the residual cement removal system: Group 1: Stainbuster bur, Group 2: Renew diamond bur #129, Group 3: Renew carbide bur, Group 4: OneGloss Complete system, Group 5: Sof-Lex system, Group 6: Enhance Finishing and PoGo Polishing complete kit, and Group 7: Renew friction grip points. The enamel surface was evaluated for roughness before bracketing and after residual cement removal using surface profilometry. The time taken for cement removal was recorded using a digital timer, and heat generation was measured using a laser thermometer before and after cement removal. One-way ANOVA compared the pre- and post-values for enamel surface roughness, temperature, and time consumed. When comparing the difference between the post- and pre-finishing roughness using one-way ANOVA, the Renew diamond bur produced the roughest enamel surface post-removal with a mean of 4.716 μm, while the Sof-Lex recorded the lowest at 0.760 μm. The highest mean temperature was recorded with the Stainbuster bur at 5.545 °C, and the lowest temperature was recorded with the Enhance bur at 2.260 °C. The time for cement removal was the shortest with the Enhance bur at 12.2 s, whereas the time was the longest with the Renew diamond bur at 30.4 s. In conclusion, all the residual cement removal systems used in this clinically simulated study were not able to restore the original enamel surface smoothness. However, the 3M Sof-Lex produced the lowest enamel roughness but with more time consumption and heat generation. When selecting the best residual cement removal system to be used, clinicians should weigh the merits and demerits of each system based on the clinical judgement of the operator. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T21:18:55Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b708cd7cae2247bfb23a98ca9fd08012 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T21:18:55Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj.art-b708cd7cae2247bfb23a98ca9fd080122023-11-19T16:13:54ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182023-10-011320328410.3390/diagnostics13203284Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal SystemsAbdullazez Almudhi0Arwa Aldeeri1Abdullah Abdulrahman A. Aloraini2Ahmed Ibrahim M. Alomar3Meshari Saad M. Alqudairi4Osama Abdullah A. Alzahrani5Elzahraa Eldwakhly6Sarah AlMugairin7Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaCollege of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaCollege of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaCollege of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaCollege of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaCollege of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Clinical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 11671, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 11671, Saudi ArabiaThis study used seven different adhesive removal systems to evaluate and compare enamel surface integrity, heat generation, and time consumed during residual cement removal after de-bracketing. The sample size was 140 human premolars. Teeth were cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Brackets were then debonded using bracket-removing pliers. Teeth were randomly assigned to seven groups based on the residual cement removal system: Group 1: Stainbuster bur, Group 2: Renew diamond bur #129, Group 3: Renew carbide bur, Group 4: OneGloss Complete system, Group 5: Sof-Lex system, Group 6: Enhance Finishing and PoGo Polishing complete kit, and Group 7: Renew friction grip points. The enamel surface was evaluated for roughness before bracketing and after residual cement removal using surface profilometry. The time taken for cement removal was recorded using a digital timer, and heat generation was measured using a laser thermometer before and after cement removal. One-way ANOVA compared the pre- and post-values for enamel surface roughness, temperature, and time consumed. When comparing the difference between the post- and pre-finishing roughness using one-way ANOVA, the Renew diamond bur produced the roughest enamel surface post-removal with a mean of 4.716 μm, while the Sof-Lex recorded the lowest at 0.760 μm. The highest mean temperature was recorded with the Stainbuster bur at 5.545 °C, and the lowest temperature was recorded with the Enhance bur at 2.260 °C. The time for cement removal was the shortest with the Enhance bur at 12.2 s, whereas the time was the longest with the Renew diamond bur at 30.4 s. In conclusion, all the residual cement removal systems used in this clinically simulated study were not able to restore the original enamel surface smoothness. However, the 3M Sof-Lex produced the lowest enamel roughness but with more time consumption and heat generation. When selecting the best residual cement removal system to be used, clinicians should weigh the merits and demerits of each system based on the clinical judgement of the operator.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/20/3284orthodontic adhesiveorthodontic bracketsdental enamelSEMdental debonding |
| spellingShingle | Abdullazez Almudhi Arwa Aldeeri Abdullah Abdulrahman A. Aloraini Ahmed Ibrahim M. Alomar Meshari Saad M. Alqudairi Osama Abdullah A. Alzahrani Elzahraa Eldwakhly Sarah AlMugairin Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems Diagnostics orthodontic adhesive orthodontic brackets dental enamel SEM dental debonding |
| title | Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems |
| title_full | Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems |
| title_short | Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems |
| title_sort | comparison of enamel surface integrity after de bracketing as affected by seven different orthodontic residual cement removal systems |
| topic | orthodontic adhesive orthodontic brackets dental enamel SEM dental debonding |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/20/3284 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT abdullazezalmudhi comparisonofenamelsurfaceintegrityafterdebracketingasaffectedbysevendifferentorthodonticresidualcementremovalsystems AT arwaaldeeri comparisonofenamelsurfaceintegrityafterdebracketingasaffectedbysevendifferentorthodonticresidualcementremovalsystems AT abdullahabdulrahmanaaloraini comparisonofenamelsurfaceintegrityafterdebracketingasaffectedbysevendifferentorthodonticresidualcementremovalsystems AT ahmedibrahimmalomar comparisonofenamelsurfaceintegrityafterdebracketingasaffectedbysevendifferentorthodonticresidualcementremovalsystems AT mesharisaadmalqudairi comparisonofenamelsurfaceintegrityafterdebracketingasaffectedbysevendifferentorthodonticresidualcementremovalsystems AT osamaabdullahaalzahrani comparisonofenamelsurfaceintegrityafterdebracketingasaffectedbysevendifferentorthodonticresidualcementremovalsystems AT elzahraaeldwakhly comparisonofenamelsurfaceintegrityafterdebracketingasaffectedbysevendifferentorthodonticresidualcementremovalsystems AT sarahalmugairin comparisonofenamelsurfaceintegrityafterdebracketingasaffectedbysevendifferentorthodonticresidualcementremovalsystems |