Evaluation of enamel roughness after orthodontic debonding and clean-up procedures using zirconia, tungsten carbide, and white stone burs: an in vitro study

The main goal of orthodontic debonding is to restore the enamel surface as closely as possible to its pretreatment condition without iatrogenic damage. This study aimed to compare the effects of different adhesive removal burs; zirconia burs, tungsten carbide burs, and white stone burs on enamel sur...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC oral health 2023-07, Vol.23 (1), p.478-478, Article 478
Main Authors: Thawaba, Ahmed A, Albelasy, Nehal F, Elsherbini, Amira M, Hafez, Ahmad M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adhesives
Aluminum
Bond strength
Composite materials
Composition
Dental debonding
Dental enamel
Dental Polishing
Enamel, Dental
Kruskal-Wallis test
Orthodontic brackets
Orthodontics
Premolars
Properties
Scanning electron microscopy
Statistical analysis
Surface Properties
Teeth
Tungsten
Tungsten carbide
Zirconia
Zirconium oxide
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The main goal of orthodontic debonding is to restore the enamel surface as closely as possible to its pretreatment condition without iatrogenic damage. This study aimed to compare the effects of different adhesive removal burs; zirconia burs, tungsten carbide burs, and white stone burs on enamel surface roughness. Total sample of 72 extracted premolars was randomly divided into three equal groups (n = 24) depending on the method of adhesive removal: zirconia burs (ZB); tungsten carbide burs (TC); and white stones (WS). The metal brackets were bonded using Transbond XT orthodontic adhesive (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) and debonded after 24 h using a debonding plier, then the ARI was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed using the different burs and Final polishing was performed using Sof-lex discs and spirals. Thirteen samples from each group were evaluated using a Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometer to determine average surface roughness (Ra) and three samples from each group were examined under Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine EDI score. The evaluations were performed at three time points; before bonding (T0), after adhesive removal (T1) and after polishing (T2) and the time consumed for adhesive removal by burs was recorded in seconds. The data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA, Tukey's test and Kruskal-Wallis H-test. Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed no statistically significant difference of ARI in all studied groups (p = 0.845) and two-way mixed ANOVA revealed that all burs significantly increased surface roughness at T1 compared to T0 (p 
ISSN:1472-6831
1472-6831
DOI:10.1186/s12903-023-03194-6