Materials and methods used for adhesive remnant removal and polishing of enamel after orthodontic treatment: a review


Article Sidebar

Pdf 216
Published: Aug 25, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2022.4303
Keywords:
Dental enamel, Debonding, Enamel polishing, Adhesive remnant removal
Section
Review Articles
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Main Article Content

Pradeep Kandikatla
Vishnu Dental College
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4286-6633
Priyanka Polineti
Vishnu Dental College
R Ushasree
Lenora Dental College
Pavan Kumar Chiluvuri
Konaseema Institute of Dental Sciences

Abstract

Brackets are generally debonded and the remaining adhesive is removed at the end of the orthodontic treatment. There are different methods for adhesive removal of which few methods have a chance of damaging enamel and roughening the tooth surface which can lead to plaque accumulation, discolouration, and aesthetic problems. Enamel polishing after debonding is one strategy to decrease such consequences. Several enamel cleaning and polishing methods include Sof-Lex discs, TC burs, ultrasonic tools, hand instruments, rubbers, composite burs, Arkansas stones, green stones, diamond burs, steel burs and lasers. Each method has some advantages and some lacunae. To be precise soflex discs and TC burs have less damage on enamel than other methods, i.e., Arkansas stone and greenstone. This article is a review of available different enamel cleaning and polishing methods after debonding, their advantages and disadvantages.

Article Details


How to Cite
Kandikatla, P., Polineti, P., Ushasree, R. ., & Chiluvuri, P. K. (2022). Materials and methods used for adhesive remnant removal and polishing of enamel after orthodontic treatment: a review. International Journal of Dental Materials, 4(3), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2022.4303
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Pradeep Kandikatla, Vishnu Dental College

Reader, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vishnu Dental College.

Priyanka Polineti, Vishnu Dental College

Postgraduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram-534202,

R Ushasree, Lenora Dental College

Reader, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Lenora Dental College, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Pavan Kumar Chiluvuri, Konaseema Institute of Dental Sciences

Reader, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Konaseema Institute of Dental Sciences, Amalapuram

References

  1. Sigilião LC, Marquezan M, Elias CN, Ruellas AC, Sant'Anna EF. The efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study. Dental press journal of orthodontics. 2015;20(5):78-85. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.078-085.oar
  2. Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108(3):284–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70023-4
  3. Shah P, Sharma P, Goje SK, Kanzariya N, Parikh M. Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal—an in vitro study. Progress in Orthodontics. 2019;20(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0269-x
  4. Almeida HC, Vedovello Filho M, Vedovello SA, Young AAA, Ramirez-Yanez GO. Er: YAG laser for composite removal after bracket debonding: a qualitative SEM analysis. Int J Orthod. 2009;20(1):9–13.
  5. Goel A, Singh A, Gupta T, Gambhir RS. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after various bonding and clean-up procedures on enamel bonded with three different bonding agents: an in-vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017; 9(5):608–16. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.53237
  6. Baumann DF, Brauchli L, van Waes H. The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2011;72:125-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0010-y
  7. Mashloosh KM, Eyre TS. Abrasive wear and its application to digger teeth. Tribology Int. 1985;18(5):259-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-679X(85)90104-5
  8. Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. Am J Orthod. 1977;71(6):651-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(77)90281-0
  9. Sugsompian K, Tansalarak R, Piyapattamin T. Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation. Euro J Dent. 2020;14(02):299-305. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1709945
  10. Zachrisson BU, Årthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthodont. 1979;75(2):121-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181-7
  11. Banerjee A, Paolinelis G, Socker M, McDonald F, Watson TF. An in vitro investigation of the effectiveness of bioactive glass air?abrasion in the ‘selective’removal of orthodontic resin adhesive. Euro J Oral Sci. 2008;116(5):488-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00561.x
  12. Cochrane NJ, Ratneser S, Reynolds EC. Effect of different orthodontic adhesive removal techniques on sound, demineralized and remineralized enamel. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(3):365-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01713.x
  13. Oliver RG, Griffiths J. Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding—time is taken and surface enamel appearance. Brit J Orthodont. 1992;19(2):131-7. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.19.2.131
  14. Smith SC, Walsh LJ, Taverne AA. Removal of orthodontic bonding resin residues by CO2 laser radiation: surface effects. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1999;17(1):13-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/clm.1999.17.13
  15. Almeida HC, Vedovello Filho M, Vedovello SA, et al. Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2009;20:9–13.
  16. Order EA, Ak?n M, Cime L, ?leri Z. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after various finishing techniques for debonding of orthodontic brackets. Turk J Orthod. 2016;29(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.15-00016R1
  17. Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran). 2013;10:82–93.
  18. Khatri H, Mangla R, Garg H, Gambhir RS. Evaluation of enamel surface after orthodontic debonding and clean-up using different procedures: An in vitro study. J Dent Res Rev. 2016;3(3):88-93. https://doi.org/10.4103/2348-2915.194832
  19. Ulusoy Ç. Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17(3):209-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572009000300015
  20. Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(2):103-10.
  21. Nazir S, Cheema JA, Ahmed F, Khan UQ, Alam MA, Rehman ST. Comparing enamel surface roughness parameters for resin removal following debonding using tungsten carbide bur and soflex discs with high speed and low-speed handpieces. Pak Oral Dent J. 2020;40(1):20-3.
  22. Özer T, Ba?aran G, Kama JD. Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2010;137(3):368-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.025
  23. Bishara SE, Ortho D, Truiove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study: Part I. Background and methods. Am J Orthodont Dentofac Orthoped. 1990;98(2):145-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70008-Z
  24. Challa P, Chakravarthi S, Yudhistar PV, Rayapudi N. Evaluation of one-step micro polishers for residual resin removal after debonding on fluorosis teeth. APOS Trends Orthod. 2014;1(5):121-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-1407.139497
  25. Fan XC, Chen L, Huang XF. Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0349-6
  26. Uçtasli MB, Arisu HD, Omürlü H, Eligüzeloglu E, Ozcan S, Ergun G. The effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of other composite restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8(2):89-96. https://doi.org/10.5005/jcdp-8-2-89
  27. Reddy VR, Jaiswal S, Chandrashekar B, Chandra A, Priyanka M. Finishing and polishing of composite’s–A review. IP Indian Journal of Conservative and Endodontics. 2021;6(1):7-10. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijce.2021.003
  28. Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: An in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 108:284-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70023-4
  29. Now Y. Made-to-measure restorations. Brit Dent J. 2010;209(6): 316. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.873
  30. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding: comparison of two different burs. The Angle Orthodontist. 2010;80(6):1081-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/012610-55.1
  31. Türkün LS, Türkün M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent. 2004; 29(2):203–211.
  32. Uysal T, Eldeniz AU, Usumez S, Usumez A. Thermal changes in the pulp chamber during different adhesive clean-up procedures. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(2):220–5.
  33. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: Effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2004; 29(3):275–279.
  34. Sawai MA, Bhardwaj A, Jafri Z, Sultan N, Daing A. Tooth polishing: The current status. J Ind Soc Periodontol. 2015;19(4):375. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.154170
  35. Rethman J. Polishing angles, cups and pastes. Pract Hyg 1997;1:32-3. Retraction in: Madan C, Bains R, Bains VK. Tooth polishing: Relevance in present-day periodontal practice. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2009;13:58-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.51899
  36. Christensen RP, Bangerter VW. Determination of rpm, time, and load used in oral prophylaxis polishing in vivo. J Dent Res 1984;63(12):1376-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630120701
  37. Hodges K, editor. Concepts in Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy. New York: Delmar; 1998. p. 345 66.
  38. Alla RK. Abrasion and Polishing (in) Dental Materials Science. 1st Edition, Jaypee Medical Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2013; 360-69. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/12018_18
  39. Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. The Angle Orthodontist. 1979;49(1):1-0.
  40. Ban S. Polishing of zirconia full contour restoratives and antagonist wear. QDT. 2012;32:1240-54.
  41. Miyazaki T, Nakamura T, Matsumura H, Ban S, Kobayashi T. Current status of zirconia restoration. J Prosthodont Res. 2013;57(4):236-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2013.09.001

Most read articles by the same author(s)