Meredith Lydia, Farella Mauro, Lowrey Sam, Cannon Richard D, Mei Li
Discipline of Orthodontics, Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Department of Physics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Apr;151(4):750-757. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.021.
Interproximal reduction (IPR) removes enamel and leaves grooves and furrows on the tooth surface, which may increase the risk of caries. The aims of this study were to assess the nanotopography of enamel surfaces produced by the most commonly used IPR instruments and to evaluate the effect of polishing after IPR.
Enamel slabs were cut from the interproximal surfaces of healthy premolars and then treated with diamond burs, strips, or discs, or Sof-Lex polishing discs (3M ESPE, St Paul, Minn). All samples were cleaned by sonication in distilled water. The control group had no IPR performed and was subjected only to cleaning by sonication. The enamel surfaces were assessed using atomic force microscopy.
The IPR instruments all produced surfaces rougher than the control sample; however, the samples that received polishing with Sof-Lex discs after enamel reduction were smoother than untreated enamel (P <0.05 for all comparisons). The larger grit medium diamond burs and medium strips generated rougher enamel surfaces than their smaller grit counterparts: fine diamond burs and fine strips (P <0.001). The difference in roughness generated by mesh and curved disks was not statistically significant (P = 0.122), nor was the difference caused by fine strips and mesh discs (P = 0.811) or by fine strips and curved discs (P = 0.076) (surface roughness values for medium bur, 702 ± 134 nm; medium strip, 501 ± 115 nm; mesh disc, 307 ± 107 nm; fine bur, 407 ± 95 nm; fine strip, 318 ± 50 nm; curved disc, 224 ± 65 nm). The smoothest surfaces were created by use of the entire series of Sof-Lex polishing discs after the enamel reduction (surface roughness, 37 ± 14 nm), and these surfaces were significantly smoother than the control surfaces (surface roughness, 149 ± 39 nm; P = 0.017).
Different IPR instruments produced enamel surfaces with varied nanotopography and different degrees of roughness. Enamel surfaces treated with diamond-coated burs were the roughest, followed by diamond-coated strips and diamond coated discs. Polishing with Sof-Lex polishing discs after IPR reduced the enamel surface roughness, and this surface was even smoother than untreated enamel.
邻面去釉(IPR)会去除牙釉质并在牙齿表面留下凹槽和沟纹,这可能会增加龋齿风险。本研究的目的是评估最常用的IPR器械所产生的牙釉质表面的纳米形貌,并评估IPR后抛光的效果。
从健康前磨牙的邻面切取牙釉质块,然后用金刚石车针、条带或圆盘,或Sof-Lex抛光盘(3M ESPE,明尼苏达州圣保罗)进行处理。所有样本均在蒸馏水中通过超声清洗。对照组未进行IPR,仅通过超声进行清洗。使用原子力显微镜评估牙釉质表面。
所有IPR器械产生的表面都比对照样本粗糙;然而,在牙釉质减少后用Sof-Lex抛光盘抛光的样本比未处理的牙釉质更光滑(所有比较P<0.05)。较大粒度的中号金刚石车针和中号条带产生的牙釉质表面比其较小粒度的同类产品(细金刚石车针和细条带)更粗糙(P<0.001)。网片和弯盘产生的粗糙度差异无统计学意义(P = 0.122),细条带和网片之间(P = 0.811)或细条带和弯盘之间(P = 0.076)的差异也无统计学意义(中号车针的表面粗糙度值为702±134nm;中号条带为501±115nm;网片为307±107nm;细车针为407±95nm;细条带为318±50nm;弯盘为224±65nm)。牙釉质减少后使用整个系列的Sof-Lex抛光盘产生的表面最光滑(表面粗糙度为37±14nm),这些表面明显比对照表面更光滑(表面粗糙度为149±39nm;P = 0.017)。
不同的IPR器械产生具有不同纳米形貌和不同粗糙度的牙釉质表面。用金刚石涂层车针处理的牙釉质表面最粗糙,其次是金刚石涂层条带和金刚石涂层圆盘。IPR后用Sof-Lex抛光盘抛光可降低牙釉质表面粗糙度,且该表面比未处理的牙釉质更光滑。