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
. 2022 Nov 16:2022:4853035.
doi: 10.1155/2022/4853035. eCollection 2022.

Evaluation of Different Adhesive Resin Removal Methods after Debonding Ceramic Orthodontic Molar Tubes: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Zeynep Atmaca  1 , Mutahhar Ulusoy  2 , Cagri Ulusoy  1
Affiliations

Evaluation of Different Adhesive Resin Removal Methods after Debonding Ceramic Orthodontic Molar Tubes: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Zeynep Atmaca et al. Scanning. .

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the impacts, bond strength, residual adhesive, and time invested on the enamel surface after debonding of recently introduced ceramic buccal molar tubes with different systems.

Materials and methods: Ceramic molar tubes were bonded to fifty-four maxillary molar teeth, and a shear bond strength (SBS) test was performed. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were recorded, and the samples were divided into two groups for adhesive removal with low-speed instruments: tungsten carbide bur or diamond-coated micropolisher point. The time to clean the enamel surfaces was also noted down for each tooth. The enamel surfaces were investigated with scanning electron microscope (SEM) after adhesives were cleaned. Shapiro-Wilk's, Kolmogorov-Smirnov's, and Student's independent t tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results: The mean SBS value of the tested ceramic molar tubes was 9.78 ± 1.85 MPa, and the majority of the samples were scored as ARI 1 and ARI 2. No statistically significant difference between PoGo micropolisher and TCB was found in terms of time values for surface cleaning. The enamel surface characteristics of TCB for adhesive remnant removal resulted in a better enamel surface than the single-step diamond polisher when the samples were investigated by using SEM.

Conclusions: Ceramic molar tubes may be an enamel-safe product for patients seeking for fully aesthetic orthodontic treatment, if used in carefully handled clinical conditions. One-step polishing systems utilised with low-speed instruments could be used confidentially for cleaning the resin remnants on enamel after orthodontic treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The polycrystalline ceramic orthodontic tube tested in the study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Application of shear force produced by universal testing machine to orthodontic molar tubes.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) 8-fluted tungsten carbide bur (TCB). (b) Diamond-coated micropolisher point.
Figure 4
Figure 4
SEM image of intact tooth enamel surface.
Figure 5
Figure 5
SEM image of the base of ceramic molar tube.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(a) Enamel surface after removal of adhesive remnant using TCB under 50x magnification. (b) Image from the same region under 100x magnification.
Figure 7
Figure 7
(a) Enamel surface after removal of adhesive n using PoGo micropolisher under 50x magnification. Note the scratches on surface. (b) Image from the same region under 100x magnification.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Histogram showing adhesive remnant removal time in seconds of the tested materials.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jena A. K., Duggal R., Mehrotra A. K. Physical properties and clinical characteristics of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. Trends Biomaterials & Artificial Organs . 2007;20(2):101–115.
    1. Karamouzos A., Athanasiou A. E., Papadopoulos M. A. Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . 1997;112(1):34–40. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70271-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hossaini S., Bahador A. Application of the high intensity laser therapies on ceramic brakets debonding: a literature review. Annals of Dental Specialty . 2018;6(3):363–366.
    1. Chen H.-Y., Su M.-Z., Chang H.-F. F., Chen Y.-J., Lan W.-H., Lin C.-P. Effects of different debonding techniques on the debonding forces and failure modes of ceramic brackets in simulated clinical set-ups. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . 2007;132(5):680–686. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Janiszewska-Olszowska J., Tomkowsk R., Tandecka K., et al. Effect of orthodontic debonding and residual adhesive removal on 3D enamel microroughness. PeerJ . 2016;4, article e2558 doi: 10.7717/peerj.2558. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources