Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

This study investigated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with commonly used methods.

Methods

Part I: a survey was sent to active members of the American Association of Orthodontists to determine popular bonding, debonding, and polishing protocols. Part II: brackets were bonded to the buccal surface of 30 extracted human premolar teeth. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with 12-, 16-, and 20-fluted titanium carbide burs as based upon the survey results. The teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness. Part III: the teeth were further polished using a Reliance Renew polishing point or a prophy cup with pumice and rescanned for surface roughness.

Results

Part I: the majority of respondents used a generic bracket-removing plier to remove fixed appliances (53%) and a high-speed handpiece for adhesive removal (85%). The most popular bur was a 12-fluted carbide bur without water spray. The majority of respondents used pumice paste and/or Reliance Renew points after adhesive removal. Part II: there was a significant difference in enamel surface roughness when 12-, 16-, and 20-fluted carbide burs were compared via surface profilometry. Part III: further polishing with a Reliance Renew point or a prophy cup and pumice did not provide a significantly smoother surface.

Conclusions

The results show large variation in debonding and polishing techniques. Creating a smooth enamel surface is equally possible with 12- or 20-fluted carbide burs. Further polishing with pumice and prophy cup or Renew point does not provide an enamel smoother surface.

Keywords

Enamel Polishing Resin Removal Debonding

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Campbell

. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995; 65: 103–110.

Caspersen

Residual acrylic adhesive after removal of plastic orthodontic brackets: a scanning electron microscopic study. Am J Orthod 1997; 71: 637–650.

Eminkahyagil

, Arman

, Cetinşahin

and Karabulut

Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 314–321.

Ireland

, Hosein

and Sherriff

Enamel loss at bond-up, debond and clean-up following the use of a conventional light-cured composite and a resin-modified glass polyalkenoate cement. Eur J Orthod 2005; 27: 413–419.

Kim

, Heimisdottir

, Gebauer

and Persson

. Clinical and microbiological findings at sites treated with orthodontic fixed appliances in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 223–228.

Osorio

, Toledano

and García-Godoy

Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child 1998; 65: 313–317, 354.

Retief

and Denys

. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod 1979; 49: 1–10.

Rouleau

, Grayson

and Cooley

. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1982; 81: 423–426.

Ryf

, Flury

, Palaniappan

, Lussi

, van Meerbeek

and Zimmerli

Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34: 25–32.

10.

Ulusoy

Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding. J Appl Oral Sci 2009; 17: 209–215.

11.

Vieira

, Pinto

, Chevitarese

and Almeida

. Polishing after debracketing: its influence upon enamel surface. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1993; 18: 7–11.

12.

Zachrisson

and Artun

Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979; 75: 121–137.

13.

Zaher

, Abdalla

, Abdel Motie

, Rehman

, Kassem

and Athanasiou

. Enamel colour changes after debonding using various bonding systems. J Orthod 2012; 39: 82–88.