Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal—an in vitro study
作者： Priyanka Shah , Padmaja Sharma , Santosh Kumar Goje , Nikita Kanzariya , Maitry Parikh
DOI: 10.1186/S40510-019-0269-X
关键词:
摘要: Orthodontic bonding and debonding procedures involve risk of damaging the enamel surface changing its original morphology. The rough inhibits proper cleaning, invites plaque deposition, bacterial retention, stain formation thus dampening esthetic appearance teeth. Restoring to morphology is a challenge. Researches on better adhesive removal methods which can effectively remove residual resin restore it best form are continuing till date. No study has compared four contemporary finishing systems for their efficiency single platform. objective this evaluate compare roughness after using different polishing systems. Adhesive was removed from buccal 88 premolars with 4 groups. It included 22 teeth per group: group 1—One gloss system; 2—Enhance 3—fiber reinforced stainbuster bur; 4—Soflex discs wheels. Roughness measured quantitatively qualitatively help tester scanning electron Microscope (SEM) respectively. significant difference found in baseline Highest post-polishing observed Soflex (4.62 μm) followed by One system (3.36 μm), Enhance (3.17 μm), bur (1.99 μm) (p value < 0.01). Stainbuster created smoothest that close natural system, disc
springeropen.com
springer.com
sci-hub.se 参考文章(29)
Phillip M. Campbell, Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthodontist. ,vol. 65, pp. 103- 110 ,(1995) , 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0103:ESAOBD>2.0.CO;2
Antonio Gracco, Monica Lattuca, Silvia Marchionni, Giuseppe Siciliani, Giulio Alessandri Bonetti, SEM-Evaluation of enamel surfaces after orthodontic debonding: a 6 and 12-month follow-up in vivo study. Scanning. ,vol. 37, pp. 322- 326 ,(2015) , 10.1002/SCA.21215
Samir E. Bishara, D. Ortho., Timothy S. Truiove, Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: An in vitro study American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. ,vol. 98, pp. 145- 153 ,(1990) , 10.1016/0889-5406(90)70008-Z
Alev Cetinşahin, Neslihan Eminkahyagil, Ayca Arman, Erdem Karabulut, Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthodontist. ,vol. 76, pp. 314- 321 ,(2009) , 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0314:EORMOE]2.0.CO;2
MB Ü çtaşli, O Bala, A Güllü, None, Surface roughness of flowable and packable composite resin materials after finishing with abrasive discs. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. ,vol. 31, pp. 1197- 1202 ,(2004) , 10.1111/J.1365-2842.2004.01341.X
Sunitha Chakravarthi, Padmalatha Challa, Naveen Rayapudi, PallaVenkata Yudhistar, Evaluation of one-step micro polishers for residual resin removal after debonding on fluorosed teeth APOS Trends in Orthodontics. ,vol. 4, pp. 121- ,(2014) , 10.4103/2321-1407.139497
K. Zarrinnia, N.M. Eid, M.J. Kehoe, The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. ,vol. 108, pp. 284- 293 ,(1995) , 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70023-4
Hsing-Yu Chen, Ming-Zen Su, Hsin-Fu Frank Chang, Yi-Jane Chen, Won-Hong Lan, Chun-Pin Lin, Effects of different debonding techniques on the debonding forces and failure modes of ceramic brackets in simulated clinical set-ups. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. ,vol. 132, pp. 680- 686 ,(2007) , 10.1016/J.AJODO.2006.01.035
S. Howell, W. T. Weekes, An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Australian Dental Journal. ,vol. 35, pp. 245- 252 ,(1990) , 10.1111/J.1834-7819.1990.TB05402.X
Christos Livas, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman, Ewald Bronkhorst, Aniek Derks, Christos Katsaros, Quantification of White Spot Lesions around Orthodontic Brackets with Image Analysis Angle Orthodontist. ,vol. 78, pp. 585- 590 ,(2008) , 10.2319/0003-3219(2008)078[0585:QOWSLA]2.0.CO;2