Influence of operator, tool, dental loupes and tooth position on enamel loss and composite remnants after removal of composite attachments for orthodontic clear aligners: an experimental study using 3D profilometry - 2024
Influence of operator, tool, dental loupes and tooth position on enamel loss and composite remnants after removal of composite attachments for orthodontic clear aligners: an experimental study using 3D profilometry
[en] Purpose: To assess the influence of operator, tool, dental loupes, and tooth position on enamel loss and composite remnants after removal of composite attachments (CA) for orthodontic clear aligners. Procedure duration was also analyzed.
Materials and methods: Eight maxillary resin dental arches with four natural teeth were placed in the right posterior sector in dental simulators, and CA was realized. The dental arches were randomly distributed according to three experimental factors: operator (junior, senior), tool (tungsten carbide bur and silicone polisher, only silicone polishers), and use of dental loupes. Dental arches were scanned with 3D profilometry before and after CA removal to measure enamel surface height variation (ESHV), particularly enamel loss in the CA area. Digital microscopy was used to detect composite remnants.
Results: The mean enamel loss was -22.7 ± 29.4 µm (range -132 to 0 µm). It was not significantly influenced by experimental factors or tooth position. Composite remnants were found in 34.4% of teeth, significantly more in senior than in junior operators (p = 0.038). They were more frequent with silicone polishers than with tungsten carbide burs (p = 0.0005) and were reduced using dental loupes (p = 0.0090). Junior operators worked faster than senior operators (p = 0.031), but the latter were quicker when using the dental loupes (p = 0.012).
Conclusion: Aligner CA removal induces enamel damage or leaves composite remnants on its surface. The presence of composite remnants is influenced by the type of tool and can be reduced by using dental loupes, which also lowers working time.
Research Center/Unit :
d‐BRU - Dental Biomaterials Research Unit - ULiège
Disciplines :
Dentistry & oral medicine
Author, co-author :
Vandeloise, Juliette ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires > Biomatériaux dentaires
Albert, Adelin ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique
Herman, Raphaël ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires > Biomatériaux dentaires ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Dental biomaterials research unit (d-BRU)
Eldafrawy, Maher ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires > Biomatériaux dentaires
Sanchez, Christelle ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires > Biomatériaux dentaires ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service prothèse fixée
Seidel, Laurence ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique
Bruwier, Annick ✱; Université de Liège - ULiège > Dental biomaterials research unit (d-BRU) ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires > Orthodontie ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service d'orthopédie dento-faciale
Mainjot, Amélie ✱; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires > Biomatériaux dentaires ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Dental biomaterials research unit (d-BRU) ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service prothèse fixée
✱ These authors have contributed equally to this work.
Language :
English
Title :
Influence of operator, tool, dental loupes and tooth position on enamel loss and composite remnants after removal of composite attachments for orthodontic clear aligners: an experimental study using 3D profilometry
Publication date :
2024
Journal title :
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
ISSN :
1461-5185
Publisher :
Quintessence Publishing Company, United States - Illinois
1. Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran) 2013;10:82–93.
2. Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:696–702.
3. Baumann DF, Brauchli L, Waes H van. The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding. J Orofac Orthop 2011;72:125–132.
4. Bernard H. Regard sur l’image: L’œil humain, précisions et échelles de grandeur V6. 2020. Available at: https://www.regard-sur-limage.com/precisionset-echelle-de-grandeur-oeil-humain.html
5. Cehreli ZC, Lakshmipathy M, Yazici R. Effect of different splint removal techniques on the surface roughness of human enamel: a three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Dent Traumatol 2008;24:177–182.
6. Chen Q, Zheng X, Chen W, Ni Z, Zhou Y. Influence of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances on enamel color: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2015;15:31.
7. Eliades T. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:333–338.
8. Erdur EA, Akin M, Cime L, Ileri Z. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after various finishing techniques for debonding of orthodontic brackets. Turk J Orthod 2016;29:1–5.
9. Ferracane JL. Models of caries formation around dental composite restorations. J Dent Res 2016;96:364–371.
10. Garg R, Dixit P, Khosla T, Gupta P, Kalra H, Kumar P. Enamel surface roughness after debonding: a comparative study using three different burs. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19:521–526.
11. Grocholewicz K. Effect of Orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel – current knowledge and future perspectives – a systematic review. Med Sci Monit 2014;20:1991–2001.
12. Howell S, Weekes WT. An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Aust Dent J 1990;35:245–252.
13. Joo H-J, Lee Y-K, Lee D-Y, Kim Y-J, Lim Y-K. Influence of orthodontic adhesives and clean-up procedures on the stain susceptibility of enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod 2011;81:334–340.
14. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding: comparison of two different burs. Angle Orthod 2010;80:1081–1088.
15. Koenig V, Wulfman C, Bekaert S, Dupont N, Le Goff S, Eldafrawy M, Vanheusden A, Mainjot A. Clinical behavior of second-generation zirconia monolithic posterior restorations: two-year results of a prospective study with ex vivo analyses including patients with clinical signs of bruxism. J Dent 2019;91:103229.
16. Moecke SE, Barros PCA, Andrade ACM, Borges AB, Pucci CR, Torres CRG. Efficacy of bracket adhesive remnant removal by a fluorescence-aided identification technique with a UV light handpiece: in vitro study. Int J Dent 2022; 2022:1–6.
17. Mohebi S, Shafiee H-A, Ameli N. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding with atomic force microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:521–527.
18. Oliver RG, Griffiths J. Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding – time taken and surface enamel appearance. Br J Orthod 1992;19:131–137.
19. Putrino A, Barbato E, Galluccio G. Clear aligners: between evolution and efficiency – a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:2870.
20. Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod 1979;49:1–10.
21. Rocha RS, Salomão FM, Silveira Machado L, Sundfeld RH, Fagundes TC. Efficacy of auxiliary devices for removal of fluorescent residue after bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 2016;87:440–447.
22. Rosin M, Splieth C, Hessler M, Gärtner C, Kordaß B, Kocher T. Quantification of gingival edema using a new 3-D laser scanning method. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:240–246.
23. Rouleau BD, Marshall GW, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1982;81: 423–426.
24. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, Meerbeek B van, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2011;34:25–32.
25. Soares Tenório KC, Neupmann Feres MF, Tanaka CJ, Augusto MKM, Rodrigues JA, Silva HD Pereira da, Arana-Chavez VE, Roscoe MG. In vitro evaluation of enamel surface roughness and morphology after orthodontic debonding: traditional cleanup systems versus polymer bur. Int Orthod 2020;18:546–554.
26. Tekçe N, Tuncer S, Demirci M, Serim ME, Baydemir C. The effect of different drinks on the color stability of different restorative materials after one month. Restor Dent Endod 2015;40:255.
27. Tüfekçi E, Merrill TE, Pintado MR, Beyer JP, Brantley WA. Enamel loss associated with orthodontic adhesive removal on teeth with white spot lesions: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:733–739.
28. Vidor MM, Felix RP, Marchioro EM, Hahn L. Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods. Dent Press J Orthod 2015;20:61–67.
29. Wulfman C, Koenig V, Mainjot AK. Wear measurement of dental tissues and materials in clinical studies: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2018;34:825–850.
30. Zachrisson BU, Årthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979;75:121–137.
31. 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;108:284–293.
