The Influence of Various Adhesive Systems and Polishing Methods on Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets: A Three-Dimensional In Vitro Evaluation

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064165%3A_____%2F23%3A10465905" target="_blank" >RIV/00064165:_____/23:10465905 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11110/23:10465905

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=jGXleCZjtb" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=jGXleCZjtb</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma16145107" target="_blank" >10.3390/ma16145107</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The Influence of Various Adhesive Systems and Polishing Methods on Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets: A Three-Dimensional In Vitro Evaluation

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

A slight alteration of the enamel surface is inevitable upon debonding of orthodontic brackets, adhesive removal, and finishing/polishing. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare two adhesives and three polishing methods by measuring enamel surface roughness using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Brackets were bonded on 42 extracted human premolars using Transbond XT (Transbond group) or Fuji Ortho (Fuji group). After debracketing, adhesives were removed with a tungsten carbide bur, and surfaces were polished using Sof-Lex discs, a rotary brush with a prophylactic paste (Depural), or a prophylactic cup with two polishing pastes (n = 7 in each subgroup). Surface roughness (Sa, Sku, Sq, and Sz) was measured using CLSM and compared before treatment (T1), after debracketing and adhesive removal (T2), and after polishing (T3). The data were statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction. The time required for adhesive removal was measured and compared using a two-sample t-test. Surface roughness at T2 increased compared to T1, but the difference was significant only for the Fuji group (p &lt; 0.01). The time required to remove Transbond XT (94.1 +- 6.8 s) was significantly higher compared to Fuji (72.1 +- 5.9 s, p &lt; 0.0001). Polishing with Sof-Lex discs resulted in lower surface roughness compared to T1 (p = 0.018). Using Depural and polishing pastes showed no significant difference in surface roughness compared to T1, except for a significant decrease in Sa and Sq for Transbond (p = 0.043) and in Sku for Fuji (p = 0.018) after polishing with Depural. In conclusion, the removal of Transbond took significantly longer, but there were fewer residues of composite resin on the enamel surface. Sof-Lex discs decreased enamel roughness, whereas enamel morphology and roughness were similar to the pre-treatment state after polishing with polishing pastes.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The Influence of Various Adhesive Systems and Polishing Methods on Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets: A Three-Dimensional In Vitro Evaluation

Popis výsledku anglicky

A slight alteration of the enamel surface is inevitable upon debonding of orthodontic brackets, adhesive removal, and finishing/polishing. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare two adhesives and three polishing methods by measuring enamel surface roughness using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Brackets were bonded on 42 extracted human premolars using Transbond XT (Transbond group) or Fuji Ortho (Fuji group). After debracketing, adhesives were removed with a tungsten carbide bur, and surfaces were polished using Sof-Lex discs, a rotary brush with a prophylactic paste (Depural), or a prophylactic cup with two polishing pastes (n = 7 in each subgroup). Surface roughness (Sa, Sku, Sq, and Sz) was measured using CLSM and compared before treatment (T1), after debracketing and adhesive removal (T2), and after polishing (T3). The data were statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction. The time required for adhesive removal was measured and compared using a two-sample t-test. Surface roughness at T2 increased compared to T1, but the difference was significant only for the Fuji group (p &lt; 0.01). The time required to remove Transbond XT (94.1 +- 6.8 s) was significantly higher compared to Fuji (72.1 +- 5.9 s, p &lt; 0.0001). Polishing with Sof-Lex discs resulted in lower surface roughness compared to T1 (p = 0.018). Using Depural and polishing pastes showed no significant difference in surface roughness compared to T1, except for a significant decrease in Sa and Sq for Transbond (p = 0.043) and in Sku for Fuji (p = 0.018) after polishing with Depural. In conclusion, the removal of Transbond took significantly longer, but there were fewer residues of composite resin on the enamel surface. Sof-Lex discs decreased enamel roughness, whereas enamel morphology and roughness were similar to the pre-treatment state after polishing with polishing pastes.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30208 - Dentistry, oral surgery and medicine

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Materials

ISSN

1996-1944

e-ISSN

1996-1944

Svazek periodika

16

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

14

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

13

Strana od-do

5107

Kód UT WoS článku

001038861000001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85166236004