Send to

Choose Destination
Angle Orthod. 2009 Jul;79(4):790-5. doi: 10.2319/040208-191.1.

Ceramic surface polishing techniques after removal of orthodontic adhesive.

Author information

Department of Orthodontics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.



Verify the in vitro effectiveness of different porcelain surface polishing systems used after orthodontic debonding.


Restorations were simulated by 52 metallic samples covered with glazed feldspathic porcelain. Four of these intact samples composed the control group (C). The remaining samples were divided into four groups (n = 12), according to the surface preparation they were to receive: no surface treatment (G1); roughened with a diamond bur (G2); etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid (G3); and sandblasted with aluminum oxide (G4). All experimental samples were treated with silane and bonded with a primer and standardized amount of adhesive. After composite removal, each group was divided into subgroups randomly (n = 4), according to the porcelain polishing system used: Edenta (P1); Identoflex (P2); and Komet (P3). All 52 sample-surfaces were evaluated quantitatively with a profilometer, and a mean roughness profile (Ra) value was determined for each sample. Both control and experimental specimens were evaluated qualitatively using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to assess surface morphology.


Statistical analysis with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey multiple comparisons test showed statistical differences between surface preparation groups (G1 not equal G2 = G3 = G4), at alpha = .05 level of significance; as for polishing protocols, no statistical difference was found.


The surface preparation was the determinant for final surface texture. No combination between surface preparation and polishing system was able to reestablish the original glazed porcelain smoothness.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Allen Press, Inc.
Loading ...
Support Center