In vitro evaluation of enamel surface roughness and morphology after orthodontic debonding: Traditional cleanup systems versus polymer bur.

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this randomized in vitro study was to compare the effectiveness of carbide, fibreglass and polymer burs on resinous remnant removal after bracket debonding, by the evaluation of enamel surface roughness and morphology. The secondary objective was to compare the time dispended on the procedures.

METHODS

The buccal surfaces of 28 bovine incisors were analysed by a profilometer to initial roughness measurement (Ra-T1). Brackets were bonded with a light-cured resin and debonded with a debonding plier. The samples were randomly divided into four groups, according to the bur used (n=7): A-Tungsten carbide; B-Fibreglass; C-Polymer; D-Polymer with 75% ethanol pre-treatment. The second roughness measurements were made after resin removal (Ra-T2). Time for removal procedures was also recorded. The third measurements were made after polishing (Ra-T3). Scanning Electronic Microscopy was performed in two samples of each group: after resin removal and after polishing. Results of roughness and time measurements were statically analysed by analysis of variance with post-hoc Bonferroni.

RESULTS

After polishing, tungsten carbide (P=0.1555) and fibreglass burs provided final surface roughness statistically similar to the baseline condition (P=1.0000). Yet, polymer burs, associated (P<0.0001) or not to alcohol (P<0.0001), provided surface roughness significantly higher when compared to baseline values. Polymer burs were more time-consuming on resinous remnant removal than tungsten carbide and fibreglass burs (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Polymer burs were less effective and more time-consuming to remove the remaining resin than tungsten carbide and fibreglass burs. The polishing step created smoother surfaces regardless of the burs used for resin removal.