Author(s):
Mohammad Reza Soltani, Parisa Kazemi, Amir Mohammad Shirkhani
Email(s):
soltansoltan492@gmail.com
DOI:
10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00114 
Address:
Mohammad Reza Soltani1, Parisa Kazemi2, Amir Mohammad Shirkhani3*
1Assistant Professor of Operative Dentistry, School of Dental, Ilam University of Medical of Sciences,
Ilam, Iran.
2Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
3General Dentist, Faculty of Dentistry, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
*Corresponding Author
Published In:
Volume - 17,
Issue - 2,
Year - 2024
ABSTRACT:
Introduction: Emergence of superficial enamel roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding leads to the accumulation of microbial plaque, resulting in the development of dental caries and compromising the aesthetics and health of the tooth enamel. The objective of this current study is to investigate the Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Brackets Debonding and Surface Polishing with Restorative and Orthodontic Composites. Materials and Methods: In the present study, three types of composites were used for bonding metal orthodontic brackets. The samples were randomly divided into three cure groups: XT, GC, and SHOFU. Subsequently, the brackets were debonded, and the target surfaces were treated using a carbide bur for one minute by an operator to remove adhesive remnants and be prepared for bonding. The superficial enamel roughness was then examined. Furthermore, the samples were evaluated for the Adhesive Remnant Index before and after adhesive removal and enamel surface preparation. The data were analyzed using ANOVA test and SPSS software version 22. Results: The results indicated that there was no significant difference in surface roughness among the tested groups. However, a significant difference was observed between the surface roughness of the experimental groups and the healthy enamel surface (P<0.05). Moreover, among the different experimental groups, there were statistically significant differences in the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) after bracket debonding, before and after enamel surface cleaning. These differences were primarily due to distinctions between the XT and SHOFU groups, as well as between the GC and SHOFU groups. However, there was no significant difference in ARI before and after enamel surface cleaning between the XT and GC groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The results of the present study indicate a desirable and acceptable performance of the composite material. It is suggested that future studies focus on a comparative investigation of several cleaning and surface preparation systems.
Cite this article:
Mohammad Reza Soltani, Parisa Kazemi, Amir Mohammad Shirkhani. Comparison of Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Brackets Debonding and Surface Polishing with Restorative and Orthodontic Composites. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024; 17(2):734-8. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00114
Cite(Electronic):
Mohammad Reza Soltani, Parisa Kazemi, Amir Mohammad Shirkhani. Comparison of Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Brackets Debonding and Surface Polishing with Restorative and Orthodontic Composites. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024; 17(2):734-8. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00114 Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2024-17-2-42
REFERENCES:
1. Megh S, Rao V.V, Minor Babu M.S, Satyam M, Pallepati A, Mythraiye R, Paravada C. An In-vitro Comparison of the Shear Bond Strength of Three Different Composite Materials with Three Different Etchants for the Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets. Cureus. 2019; 11(6):e4944. doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4944
2. Kim K.B. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2016; 153(1):162.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.11.009
3. Davari A, Dnesh-kazemi A, Piri-Ardakai M. Comparison of orthodontic brackets with three types of Maku, Helimolar and Z250. Journal of Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. 2006; 24(2): 194-99. doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2017/8/05/175
4. Gidde N.D, Nitalikar M.M, Raut I.D. Nanocomposites: A review on current status. Asian Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 11(3): 231-7. doi.org/10.52711/2231-5713.2021.00038
5. Sadri K, Shayan A.M, Behroozian A, Fathi P. Comparison of the Direction of Enamel Microcracks in Five Different Debonding Methods: An in Vitro Study.Iranian Journal of Orthodontics. 2021; 16(1): 1–6.doi.org/10.22034/ijo.2021.540946.1005
6. Campbell P.M. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. The Angle Orthodontist. 1995; 65(2): 103–11. doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0103:ESAOBD>2.0.CO;2
7. Yaple M.J, Quick D.C. Experimental traumatic debonding of orthodontic bracketsThe Angle Orthodontist. 1994; 64: 131-6. doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0131:ETDOOB>2.0.CO;2
8. Zarrinnia K, Eid N.M, Kehoe M.J. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1995; 108(3): 284-293. doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70023-4
9. Aravind N, Pandiyan, S. Demineralisation around Orthodontic Brackets-A Review. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2016; 9(9): 1536-40. doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2016.00301.2
10. Priya B, Jain R.K. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Different Light Cure Orthodontic Adhesives-An In vitro Study. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(12): 5593-8. doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2018.01017.X
11. Shafiei F, Sardarian A, Fekrazad R, Farjood A. Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a universal adhesive using different etching methods. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2019; 24(4): 1–8. doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.4.33.e1-8.onl
12. Bishara S.E, VonWald L, Laffoon J.F, Warren J.J. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2001; 119(6): 621-4. doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.113269
13. Kim S.S, Park W.K, Son WS, Ahn H.S, Ro J.H, Kime Y.D. Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodonticcomposite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: a 3-dimensionalsurface profilometrystudy. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2007; 132(1): 71–6. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.027
14. Krell K.V, Courey J.M, Bishara S.E. Orthodontic bracketremoval using conventional and ultrasonic debondingtechniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1993; 103(3): 258–66. doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70007-B
15. Fjeld M, Øgard B. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel surfaces exposed to 3 orthodontic bonding systems. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2006; 130(3): 575–81.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.07.002
16. Zachrisson B.U, Årthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. American journal of orthodontics. 1979; 75(2): 121–37.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181-7
17. Nalini B, Kumar S.C, Rao N.V. Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness of different Composites and its effect on Colour Stability of the Restoration. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(9): 3854-60. doi.org/10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00646
18. Yassaei S, Fekrazad R, Shahraki N, Moghadam M.G. A comparison of shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets using conventional acid etching technique and Er: YAG laser etching. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2014; 8(1): 27-33.doi.org/10.5681/joddd.2014.005
19. Roozegar M.A, Nourmohammadi H, Havasian M, Seidkhani H, Jamdar S. Evaluation of Oral and Dental complications caused by Cyclophosphamide in patients with breast cancer in the Shahid-Mostafa Hospital, Ilam, 2019. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(12): 5517-20.doi.org/10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00931
20. Sheykh M, Ostadrahimi P, Havasian,M.R, Rostami-Estabragh K, Mahmoodi Z. Evaluation of gender differences in the prevalence of coronary risk factors in patients with acute intractable syndrome hospitalized in CCU of Amir-Almomenin hospital, Zabol. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2017; 10(9): 2883-6. doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2017.00509.1
21. Otogara,M, Babaei M, Abzadeh Z.A, Shabanpoor M, Havasian M.R, Rad S.H, Shayan A. The effect of communication skills training for medical personnel on patients’ satisfaction.Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2017; 10(11): 3951-6. doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2017.00717.X
22. Babu T.N, Singh A.K, Mandliya A, Singh A, Prabha D.R. Evaluation of Flexural Strength of Epoxy Resin Based hybrid Composites Reinforced with Jute, Banana and Flax Natural Fibers for Bio medical applications. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(2): 547-52. doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2018.00102.6
23. Haripriya S, Ajitha P. Survey among General Practitioners in Chennai about Dental Restorations being used as a Forensic Tool. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(4): 1425-8. doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2018.00266.4
24. Hegde A, Shetty P, Bhat R. Effect of Delaying tooth brushing on Enamel surface roughness during bleaching with different concentrations of carbamide peroxide: An In vitro study. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2020; 13(5): 2112-6. doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00380.7
25. Qgaard B.Oral microbiological changes, long-term enamel alterations due to decalcification and caries prophylactic aspects. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T. Orthodontic materials: Scientific and Clinical Aspects. New York, NY: Thieme, Stuttgart; 2001. P. 124-39.
26. Mohebi S, Janbaz Y, SarpirayDerafshi S, Badiee M. Enamel surface roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding and composite resin removal using tungsten carbide and arkansas burs. Studies in Medical Sciences. 2016; 26(11): 921-30. doi.org/10.22122/JOHOE.V7I3.374
27. Hosein I, SherrifM, Ireland A.J. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a selfetching primer. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2004; 126(6): 717-24. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.032
28. Odegaard J, Segner D. Shear bond strength of metal bracketscompared with a new ceramicbracket. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1988; 94(3): 201-6. doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90028-5
29. Britton J.C, McInnes P, Weinberg R, Ledoux W.R, Retief D.H. Shear bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel.American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1990; 98(4): 348-53. doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81492-1
30. Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2004; 26(3): 333–8. doi.org/10.1093/ejo/26.3.333
31. Olad F, Moradinejad M, HaghighatJahromi N, Niknam O. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after removal of orthodontic composite resin remnants by two different approaches. Journal of Isfahan Dental School. 2016; 12(2): 175-82.
32. Tenório K.C.S. Feres M.F.N, Tanaka C.J, Augusto M.K.M, Rodrigues J.A, da Silva H.D.P, Roscoe M.G. In vitro evaluation of enamel surface roughness and morphology after orthodontic debonding: Traditional cleanup systems versus polymer bur. International Orthodontics. 2020; 18(3): 546-54. doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2020.04.006
33. Pinzan-Vercelino C.R.M, Costa A.C.S, Gurgel J.A, Freitas K.M.S. Comparison of enamel surface roughness and color alteration after bracket debonding and polishing with 2 systems: A split-mouth clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2021; 160(5): 686-94. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.06.039