<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec><h3>Background</h3><p>Following the debonding of orthodontic brackets, the removal of residual adhesive from the enamel surface is required. Published adhesive removal protocols present conflicting advice.</p></sec><sec><h3>Aims</h3><p>The present study evaluated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with non-traditional orthodontic polishing systems.</p></sec><sec><h3>Methods</h3><p>The facial aspects of 35 extracted human incisor teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness prior to the bonding of orthodontic brackets. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with a 12-fluted titanium carbide bur. The teeth were randomly divided into seven groups (N = 5 per group) and the enamel surface was polished with one of seven products. All samples were re-scanned for surface roughness and subjectively evaluated via SEM.</p></sec><sec><h3>Results</h3><p>There was no significant difference in enamel surface roughness between the groups when compared using surface profilometry. Visual observations from the SEM evaluations demonstrated differences in the enamel surface at the microscopic level that were not detected by profilometric analysis.</p></sec><sec><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The present study found no statistically significant difference in mean enamel smoothness change from pretreatment to post-treatment between the seven polishing methods studied via profilometer surface reading measurements. An SEM analysis showed visual differences in enamel striations viewed at 1000× magnification in a comparison of traditional versus non-traditional polishing methods.</p></sec></abstract>

BackgroundFollowing the debonding of orthodontic brackets, the removal of residual adhesive from the enamel surface is required. Published adhesive removal protocols present conflicting advice.AimsThe present study evaluated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with non-traditional orthodontic polishing systems.MethodsThe facial aspects of 35 extracted human incisor teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness prior to the bonding of orthodontic brackets. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with a 12-fluted titanium carbide bur. The teeth were randomly divided into seven groups (N = 5 per group) and the enamel surface was polished with one of seven products. All samples were re-scanned for surface roughness and subjectively evaluated via SEM.ResultsThere was no significant difference in enamel surface roughness between the groups when compared using surface profilometry. Visual observations from the SEM evaluations demonstrated differences in the enamel surface at the microscopic level that were not detected by profilometric analysis.ConclusionsThe present study found no statistically significant difference in mean enamel smoothness change from pretreatment to post-treatment between the seven polishing methods studied via profilometer surface reading measurements. An SEM analysis showed visual differences in enamel striations viewed at 1000× magnification in a comparison of traditional versus non-traditional polishing methods.

Comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with novel non-orthodontic methods for residual adhesive removal

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

BackgroundFollowing the debonding of orthodontic brackets, the removal of residual adhesive from the enamel surface is required. Published adhesive removal...

Comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with novel non-orthodontic methods for residual adhesive removal

Published Online: Jul 30, 2021

Page range: 41 - 47

Received: Sep 01, 2015

Accepted: Feb 01, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-111

© 2016 John Andrews et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.