Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Nov;80(6):1081-8.
doi: 10.2319/012610-55.1.

Enamel surface roughness after debonding

Sevinc Karan  1 , Beyza Hancioglu Kircelli, Bahar Tasdelen
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Enamel surface roughness after debonding

Sevinc Karan et al. Angle Orthod. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: To test the hypotheses that (1) there is no significant difference between the effects of two burs on the surface roughness of enamel after orthodontic debonding, and (2) there is no difference between resin removal times of the two burs.

Materials and methods: The crowns of 20 premolars were embedded in acrylic blocks, and the buccal surfaces were subjected to atomic force microscopy (AFM), with measurement of initial roughness values. The brackets were bonded with a light-cured adhesive and were debonded with a debonding plier. In half of samples, adhesive remnants were removed with a tungsten carbide bur, whereas a fiber-reinforced composite bur was used in the other half. The second AFM measurements were made after resin removal. Duration of removal procedures was also recorded. Results of roughness and duration measurements were analyzed with the use of repeated measurements analysis of variance and independent t-tests, respectively.

Results: The two resin removal instruments had significantly different effects on enamel roughness; higher average roughness (Sa) (P < .001), root mean square roughness (Sq) (P = .046), and maximum roughness depth (Smax) (P < .001) values were obtained with use of the tungsten carbide bur. Time required for resin removal with the composite bur was significantly greater than time required with the carbide bur (P < .001).

Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. The composite bur used for resin removal creates smoother surfaces after orthodontic bonding; however, the process takes longer than it does when the tungsten carbide bur is used.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Tungsten carbide bur.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Composite bur.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Samples and applications of the burs.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Results of average roughness (Sa).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Results of root mean square roughness (Sq).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Results of maximum roughness depth (Smax).
Figure 7
Figure 7
AFM scans of a tungsten carbide bur sample—prebond. AFM scans of a tungsten carbide bur sample—after resin removal.
Figure 8
Figure 8
AFM scans of a composite bur sample—prebond. AFM scans of a composite bur sample—after resin removal.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Campbell P. M. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995;65:103–110. - PubMed
    1. Rouleau B. D, Jr, Marshall G. W, Jr, Cooley R. O. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1982;81:423–426. - PubMed
    1. Hong Y. H, Lew K. K. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of enamel surface following five composite removal methods after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod. 1995;17:121–128. - PubMed
    1. Howell S, Weekes W. T. An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Aust Dent J. 1990;35:245–252. - PubMed
    1. Krell K. V, Courey J. M, Bishara S. E. Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103:258–266. - PubMed