Edition V20N05 | Year 2015 | Editorial Original Article | Pages 78 to 85
Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficiency of six protocols for cleaning-up tooth enamel after bracket debonding. Methods: A total of 60 premolars were divided into six groups, according to the tools used for clean-up: 12-blade bur at low speed (G12L), 12-blade bur at high speed (G12H), 30-blade bur at low speed (G30L), DU10CO ORTHO polisher (GDU), Renew System (GR) and Diagloss polisher (GD). Mean roughness (Ra) and mean roughness depth (Rz) of enamel surface were analyzed with a profilometer. Paired t-test was used to assess Ra and Rz before and after enamel clean-up. ANOVA/Tukey tests were used for intergroup comparison. The duration of removal procedures was recorded. The association between time and variation in enamel roughness (ΔRa, ΔRz) were evaluated by Pearson’s correlation test. Enamel topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: In Groups G12L and G12H, original enamel roughness did not change significantly. In Groups G30L, GDU, GR and GD, a smoother surface (p < 0.05) was found after clean-up. In Groups G30L and GD, the protocols used were more time-consuming than those used in the other groups. Negative and moderate correlation was observed between time and (ΔRa, ΔRz); Ra and (ΔRa, ΔRz); Rz (r = - 0.445, r = - 0.475, p < 0.01). Conclusion: All enamel clean-up protocols were efficient because they did not result in increased surface roughness. The longer the time spent performing the protocol, the lower the surface roughness.
Orthodontic brackets, Dental enamel, Dental debonding,
Sigilião LCF, Marquezan M, Elias CN, Ruellas AC, Sant’Anna EF. Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015 Sept-Oct;20(5):78-85. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.078-085.oar