Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Mar;151(3):521-527. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.025.

Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding with atomic force microscopy.

Author information

1
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran.
2
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran. Electronic address: Nazilaa.aameli@gmail.com.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Achieving a smooth enamel surface after orthodontic bracket debonding is imperative. In this study, we sought to compare the enamel surface roughness values after orthodontic bracket debonding and resin removal using a white stone bur, a tungsten carbide bur, and a tungsten carbide bur under loupe magnification.

METHODS:

Thirty sound premolars were randomly divided into 3 groups, and their buccal surfaces were subjected to atomic force microscopy to measure initial surface roughness. Brackets were bonded to the buccal surfaces and debonded after 24 hours. Resin remnants were removed using a white stone bur, a tungsten carbide bur, or a tungsten carbide bur under loupe magnification. The teeth were then subjected to atomic force microscopy again. The time required for composite removal was calculated. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance, 1-way analysis of variance, and the Tukey test.

RESULTS:

Resin removal increased the enamel surface roughness compared with the initial values (P <0.001); however, no significant differences were noted among the 3 groups in this respect after resin removal. The mean times required for smoothing by the tungsten carbide bur and the tungsten carbide bur with a dental loupe were similar (P >0.05): significantly lower than the time with the white stone bur (both, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

The tungsten carbide bur is still recommended for composite removal.

PMID:
28257737
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.025
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center