The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 5 ( 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding: A Comparative Study using Three Different Burs

Prafful Kumar, Rahul Garg, Pankaj Dixit, Taruna Khosla, Palak Gupta, Hiten Kalra

Keywords : Bracket debonding composite bur, Fiber glass bur, Orthodontic procedures, Tungsten carbide bur

Citation Information : Kumar P, Garg R, Dixit P, Khosla T, Gupta P, Kalra H. Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding: A Comparative Study using Three Different Burs. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (5):521-526.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2293

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To compare effects of three different burs, i.e., tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, and fiber glass bur on the surface roughness of enamel after debonding evaluated by means of profilometry. Materials and methods: The present study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Guru Nanak Dev Dental College and Research Institute, Sunam, Punjab, India, from August 2011 to December 2012 on 36 extracted premolars. After mounting the samples in acrylic blocks with their buccal surfaces exposed, initial measurement of the surface roughness was made using profilometry. Teeth were then etched and brackets were bonded with light cure adhesive. After 3 days, the brackets were debonded using three different rotating burs at low speed, i.e., tungsten carbide bur, fiber glass bur, and composite bur. Enamel surface roughness values were obtained and assessed using paired t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, and post hoc multiple tests. Results: Surface roughness of enamel increased significantly for tungsten carbide bur when compared with fiber glass bur and composite bur. But there was no significant difference in the surface roughness value when fiber glass bur was compared with the composite bur. Conclusion: Composite and fiber glass burs used for resin removal after orthodontic debonding produced a smoother enamel surface as compared with the tungsten carbide bur. Clinical significance: After an orthodontic treatment, restoring the enamel surface to its pretreatment condition without inducing any iatrogenic damage after debonding is a clinical challenge. Residual resin removal through proper means ensures a smooth surface, and, hence, a plaque-free environment. Finishing requires as much planning and execution as planned for the fixed therapy itself.


PDF Share
  1. Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS, Ahn HS, Ro JH, Kim YD. Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: a 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007 Jul;132(1):71-76.
  2. Hong YH, Lew KK. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of enamel surface following five composite removal methods after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod 1995 Apr;17(2):121-128.
  3. Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran) 2013 Jan;10(1):82-93.
  4. Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinsahin A, Karabulut E. Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod 2006 Mar;76(2): 314-321.
  5. Lee YK, Lim YK. Three-dimensional quantification of adhesive remnants on teeth after debonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Oct;134(4):556-562.
  6. Tonetto MR, Frizzera F, Porto TS, Jordã KF, de Andrade MF, dos Santos RS, Klug RJ, Bandeca MC. Methods for removal of resin remaining after debonding of orthodontic brackets: a literature review. J Dent Res Rev 2014 Jun;1(2):105-107.
  7. Erdur EA, Akýn M, Cime L, Ýleri Z. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after various finishing techniques for debonding of orthodontic brackets. Turk J Orthod 2016;29(1)1-5.
  8. Macieski K, Rocha R, Locks A, Ribeiro GU. Effects evaluation of remaining resin removal (three modes) on enamel surface after bracket debonding. Dent Press J Orthod 2011 Sep-Oct;16(5):146-154.
  9. Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F. Bracket bonding with 15- or 60-second etching and adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod 1999 Feb;69(1):45-49.
  10. Eliades T, Kakaboura A, Eliades G, Bradley TG. Comparison of enamel colour changes associated with orthodontic bonding using two different adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2001 Feb;23(1):85-90.
  11. Cardoso LA, Valdrighi HC, Vedovello Filho M, Correr AB. Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding. Dent Press J Orthod 2014 Nov-Dec;19(6):105-112.
  12. Almeida HC, Vedovello Filho M, Vedovello SA, Young AA, Ramirez-Yanez GO. ER:YAG laser for composite removal after bracket debonding: a qualitative SEM analysis. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2009 Spring;20(1):9-13.
  13. Ogaard B. Oral microbiological changes, long-term enamel alterations due to decalcification and caries prophylactic aspects. In: Brantly WA, Eliades T, editors. Orthodontic materials: scientific and clinical aspects. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001. pp. 124-139.
  14. Diedrich P. Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: a study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 1981 May;79(5):500-522.
  15. Benson PE, Pender N, Higham SM, Edgar WM. Morphometric assessment of enamel demineralisation from photographs. J Dent 1998 Nov;26(8):669-677.
  16. David VA, Staley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR. Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002 Mar;121(3):291-296.
  17. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004 Dec;126(6):717-724.
  18. Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V. A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental materials. Dent Mater 2006 Nov;22(11):1051-1062.
  19. Whitehead SA, Shearer AC, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Comparison of two stylus methods for measuring surface texture. Dent Mater 1999 Mar;15(2):79-86.
  20. Bennett CG, Shen C, Waldron JM. The effects of debonding on the enamel surface. J Clin Orthod 1984 May;18(5):330-334.
  21. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2012 Feb;34(1):25-32.
  22. Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995 Sep;108(3):284-293.
  23. Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod 1979 Jan;49(1):1-10.
  24. Rouleau BD Jr, Marshall GW Jr, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1982 May;81(5):423-426.
  25. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod 2010 Nov;80(6):1081-1088.
  26. Trakyali G, Ozdemir FI, Arun T. Enamel colour changes at debonding and after finishing procedures using five different adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2009 Aug;31(4):397-401.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.