Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(02): 299-305
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709945
Original Article

Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation

Kiatanan Sugsompian
1   Kosum Phisai Hospital, Amphoe Kosum Phisai, Maha Sarakham, Thailand
,
Ratchawan Tansalarak
2   Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand
,
Thosapol Piyapattamin
2   Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was partially funded by the Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to compare the enamel surface roughness created by four polishing methods after debonding, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM).

Materials and Methods Four experimental polishing groups (Sof-Lex disc, SD; sandblaster, SB; tungsten carbide bur, TB; and white stone bur, WB) and one control group were selected from 100 premolars (n = 20/group). The experimental teeth were bonded with a bracket, thermocycled, and debonded. Residual adhesive was removed by either of the respective methods. Pre and postdebonding root mean square (Rq) values were obtained from AFM evaluations. All specimens were examined and evaluated with SEM using a modified enamel surface index (modified ESI).

Statistical Analysis Differences among the polishing methods were compared with analysis of variance and Fisher’s least significant difference test at p < 0.05.

Results Both microscopic evaluations indicated that the surface with the greatest roughness herein belonged to the SD group, followed by that for SB, TB, and WB groups. AFM measurements indicated a maximum postdebonding Rq herein for the WB group and a significantly greater surface roughness for the TB and WB groups than for the SD and SB groups. Among the experimental groups, SEM followed by modified ESI evaluations revealed similar data to those obtained with AFM. Significant differences were seen among all paired groups, except for that between the SB and TB groups.

Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, all four polishing methods were concluded to be clinically acceptable for removing residual orthodontic adhesives.

Keywords

enamel surface roughness - debonding - polishing


Publication History

Article published online:
11 May 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Proffit WR, Fields HW, Larson BE, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th edition. St. Louis: Mosby; 2019: 321-355
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995; 65 (02) 103-110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel - current knowledge and future perspectives - a systematic review. Med Sci Monit 2014; 20: 1991-2001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Burapavong V, Marshall GW, Apfel DA, Perry HT. Enamel surface characteristics on removal of bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1978; 74 (02) 176-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod 1979; 49 (01) 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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; 108 (03) 284-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod 2010; 80 (06) 1081-1088
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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; 10 (01) 82-93
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Mhatre AC, Tandur AP, Reddy SS, Karunakara BC, Baswaraj H. Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting technique and carbide bur technique: a three-dimensional surface profilometry and scanning electron microscopic study. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7 (Suppl 2) 34-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shah P, Sharma P, Goje SK, Kanzariya N, Parikh M. Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal-an in vitro study. Prog Orthod 2019; 20 (01) 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mahdavie NN, Manasse RJ, Viana G, Evans CA, Bedran-Russo AB. Enamel scarring by debonding burs: an SEM and profilometric study. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48 (01) 14-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hong YH, Lew KK. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of enamel surface following five composite removal methods after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod 1995; 17 (02) 121-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Webb BJ, Koch J, Hagan JL, Ballard RW, Armbruster PC. Enamel surface roughness of preferred debonding and polishing protocols. J Orthod 2016; 43 (01) 39-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cardoso LA, Valdrighi HC, Vedovello Filho M, Correr AB. Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19 (06) 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nishigawa G, Maruo Y, Irie M. et al. Various effects of sandblasting of dental restorative materials. PLoS One 2016; 11 (01) e0147077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Millett D, McCabe JF, Gordon PH. The role of sandblasting on the retention of metallic brackets applied with glass ionomer cement. Br J Orthod 1993; 20 (02) 117-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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; 132 (01) 71-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984; 85 (04) 333-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part II. Findings and clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 98 (03) 263-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kubinek R, Zapletalova Z, Vujtek M, Novotný R, Kolarova H, Chmelickova H. Examination of dentin surface using AFM and SEM. Mod Res Educ Top Microsc 2007; 2 (15) 593-598
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140 (05) 696-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schiefelbein C, Rowland K. A comparative analysis of adhesive resin removal methods. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2011; 22 (02) 17-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pont HB, Özcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138 (04) 387.e1-387.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Oliver RG, Griffiths J. Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding–time taken and surface enamel appearance. Br J Orthod 1992; 19 (02) 131-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nanci A. Ten Cate’s Oral Histology: Development, Structure, and Function. 9th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2018: 118-156
    Google Scholar
  • 26 De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M. et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005; 84 (02) 118-132
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Khosravanifard B, Nemati-Anaraki S, Nili S, Rakhshan V. Assessing the effects of three resin removal methods and bracket sandblasting on shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets and enamel surface. Orthod Waves 2011; 70 (01) 27-38
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 González-Serrano C, Baena E, Fuentes MV. et al. Shear bond strength of a flash-free orthodontic adhesive system after thermal aging procedure. J Clin Exp Dent 2019; 11 (02) e154-e161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mohebi S, Shafiee HA, Ameli N. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding with atomic force microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151 (03) 521-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Osorio R, Toledano M, García-Godoy F. Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child 1998; 65 (05) 313-317, 354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997; 13 (04) 258-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar