Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate orthodontic debonding methods by comparing the\nsurface roughness and enamel morphology of teeth after applying two different debonding methods and three\ndifferent polishing techniques.\nMethods: Forty eight human maxillary premolars, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were randomly divided into\nthree groups. Brackets were bonded to teeth with RMGIC (Fuji Ortho LC, GC, Tokyo, Japan) (two groups, n = 18\neach) after acid etching (30s), light cured for 40 s, exposed to thermocycling, then underwent 2 different bracket\ndebonding methods: debonding pliers (Shinye, Hangzhou, China) or enamel chisel (Jinzhong, Shanghai, China); the\nthird group (n = 12) comprised of untreated controls, with normal enamel surface roughness. In each debonded\ngroup, three cleanup techniques (n = 6 each) were tested, including (I) diamond bur (TC11EF, MANI, Tochigi, Japan)\nand One-Gloss (Midi, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), (II) a Super-Snap disk (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), and (III) One-Gloss polisher.\nThe debonding methods were compared using the modified adhesive remnant index (ARI, 1ââ?¬â??5). Cleanup efficiencies\nwere assessed by recording operating times. Enamel surfaces were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated with\nscanning electron microscopy (SEM) and surface roughness tester, respectively. Two surface roughness variables\nwere evaluated: Ra (average roughness) and Rz (10-point height of irregularities).\nResults: The ARI scores of debonded teeth were similar with debonding pliers and enamel chisel (Chi-square = 2.19,\nP > 0.05). There were significant differences between mean operating time in each group (F = 52.615, P < 0.01).\nThe diamond bur + One-Gloss took the shortest operating time (37.92 Ã?± 3.82 s), followed by the Super-Snap disk\n(56.67 Ã?± 7.52 s), and the One-Gloss polisher (63.50 Ã?± 6.99 s). SEM appearance provided by the One-Gloss polisher\nwas the closest to the intact enamel surface, and surface roughness (Ra: 0.082 Ã?± 0.046 Ã?¼m; Rz: 0.499 Ã?± 0.200 Ã?¼m)\nwas closest to the original enamel (Ra: 0.073 Ã?± 0.048 Ã?¼m; Rz: 0.438 Ã?± 0.213 Ã?¼m); the next best was the Super-Snap\ndisk (Ra: 0.141 Ã?± 0.073 Ã?¼m; Rz: 1.156 Ã?± 0.755 Ã?¼m); then, the diamond bur + One-Gloss (Ra: 0.443 Ã?± 0.172 Ã?¼m;\nRz: 2.202 Ã?± 0.791 Ã?¼m).\nConclusions: Debonding pliers were safer than enamel chisels for removing brackets. Cleanup with One-Gloss\npolisher provided enamel surfaces closest to the intact enamel, but took more time, and Super-Snap disks provided\nacceptable enamel surfaces and efficiencies. The diamond bur was not suitable for removing adhesive remnant
Loading....