In vitro enamel surface roughness analysis of 4 methods for removal of remaining orthodontic adhesive after bracket debonding
Daniela Greenhalgh Thys, Fabiola Roberta Pizzolatti Martins, Lucas Cardinal, Gerson Ribeiro
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To perform an in vitro qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the enamel surface (by scanning electronic microscopy [SEM] and measuring polishing time and roughness analysis, respectively) among four methods to remove remaining orthodontic adhesive after bracket debonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one human premolars were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) according to the adhesive remnant removal method and one tooth was used as control: Group 1 (G1): Enhance (Dentsply, Milford, USA); Group 2 (G2): Fiberglass (TDV, Pomerode, Brazil); Group 3 (G3): DU10CA-Ortho (Dian Fong Industrial, Shenzhen, China); Group 4 (G4): Sof-Lex Pop-On (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). Roughness was measured before bonding and after complete removal of the remaining adhesive (Ra2). SEM analysis was performed on one sample of each group after adhesive removal and polishing. The time required for adhesive remnant removal and polishing was measured in all groups. Analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc for pairwise comparison was applied to compare polishing times among groups and analysis of covariance was used to compare Ra2 means. RESULTS: Comparison between groups show that G4 presented the lowest Ra2 mean (0.43 μm)c followed by G3 (0.71 μm)ac, G1 (1.06 μm)ab, and G2 (1.21 μm)b - different letters, statistically different at P ≤ 0.05. In addition, Fiberglass was more time-consuming for adhesive remnant removal than other methods (P ≤ .05). SEM analysis showed that some enamel damage occurred for all methods. CONCLUSIONS: All methods were able to remove the remaining adhesive and polish the enamel. The DU10CA-Ortho and Sof-Lex methods promoted better polishing of the enamel surface and exhibited a similar time-consuming process.