Comparison of Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Brackets Debonding and Surface Polishing with Restorative and Orthodontic Composites

Introduction: Emergence of superficial enamel roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding leads to the accumulation of microbial plaque, resulting in the development of dental caries and compromising the aesthetics and health of the tooth enamel. The objective of this current study is to inves...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Research journal of pharmacy and technology 2024-02, Vol.17 (2), p.734-738
Main Authors: Reza Soltani, Mohammad, Kazemi, Parisa, Mohammad Shirkhani, Amir
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acids
Adhesives
Aluminum
Bond strength
Composite materials
Dental enamel
Etching
Hominids
Orthodontics
Teeth
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction: Emergence of superficial enamel roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding leads to the accumulation of microbial plaque, resulting in the development of dental caries and compromising the aesthetics and health of the tooth enamel. The objective of this current study is to investigate the Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Brackets Debonding and Surface Polishing with Restorative and Orthodontic Composites. Materials and Methods: In the present study, three types of composites were used for bonding metal orthodontic brackets. The samples were randomly divided into three cure groups: XT, GC, and SHOFU. Subsequently, the brackets were debonded, and the target surfaces were treated using a carbide bur for one minute by an operator to remove adhesive remnants and be prepared for bonding. The superficial enamel roughness was then examined. Furthermore, the samples were evaluated for the Adhesive Remnant Index before and after adhesive removal and enamel surface preparation. The data were analyzed using ANOVA test and SPSS software version 22. Results: The results indicated that there was no significant difference in surface roughness among the tested groups. However, a significant difference was observed between the surface roughness of the experimental groups and the healthy enamel surface (P0.05). Conclusion: The results of the present study indicate a desirable and acceptable performance of the composite material. It is suggested that future studies focus on a comparative investigation of several cleaning and surface preparation systems.
ISSN:0974-3618
0974-360X
0974-306X
DOI:10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00114