Logo-joddd
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2023;17(1): 12-17.
doi: 10.34172/joddd.2023.36867
PMID: 37650020
PMCID: PMC10462917
  Abstract View: 361
  PDF Download: 198
  Full Text View: 51

Basic Research

Original Article

Comparative assessment of surface irregularities of enamel after bonding with different techniques followed by three composite removal methods: An atomic force microscopic study

Safiya Sana 1* ORCID logo, Mohammed Feroze Hussain 2, Rony T Kondody 3, Priyanka Jain 1

1 Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics at Al-Badar Rural Dental College and Hospital, Gulbarga, India
2 Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Consultant in Bangalore, India
3 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics at Sri Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Science, Bengaluru, India
*Corresponding Author: Corresponding author: Safiya Sana, Email: , Email: sanommi_123@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background. To compare and assess the enamel surface roughness by Atomic Force Microscopy between ceramic and metal brackets after adhesive removal with 3 different methods.

Methods. 90 extracted premolars were collected and divided equally into 3 groups G, Y, and R. With group G bonded with metallic brackets (using primer and Transbond XT), group Y with ceramic brackets (primer and Transbond XT), and group R with ceramic brackets (silane and Transbond XT). Each group was subdivided into 3 sub-groups (10 premolars each) based on the resin removal method as A: 12- flute tungsten carbide (TC) bur (high speed), B: 12- flute TC bur (low speed), and C: 30 flute TC bur (low speed). Surface roughness values were calculated and compared before bonding and also after adhesive removal by atomic force microscope (AFM). Measured data were analyzed using paired student t-test, ANOVA, and Tukey’s tests.

Results. Among the groups, group G showed increased surface roughness after debonding compared to group Y and group R, with Rq value showing a statistically significant difference (P<0.047). Whereas, within the subgroups, subgroup A (12-flute TC, high speed) with Rq showed increased surface roughness which was found to be statistically significant (P<0.042).

Conclusion. None of the adhesive removal methods was capable to restore the enamel to its earlier morphology; a statistically significant increase in surface roughness parameters was reported with a high-speed 12 flute TC bur for Rq and Rt.

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 362

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 198

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


Full Text View: 51

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 18 Nov 2022
Accepted: 15 Dec 2022
ePublished: 03 Apr 2023
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)