Does surface enamel composition and characteristics vary with inter proximal enamel reduction?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the chemical composition of the proximal enamel surface and the surface characteristics subjected to different extents of interproximal reduction (IPR) in a clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Premolars of orthodontic patients which were designated for extraction were subjected to .2 mm, .3 mm, and .5 mm of IPR. After 1 month, the teeth were extracted and the teeth were subjected to scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX).

RESULTS

The SEM images of the three experimental groups (taken at magnification of 500 × and 2000 ×) showed that the enamel surfaces were irregular and rough compared to the honey comb appearance of the unstripped group. Small areas of erosion of enamel surface were seen in Group I (0.2 mm) under 2000 × magnification compared to Group IV (control) which showed typical arrangement of enamel rods in alternating orientation. The enamel surfaces of stripped and unstripped enamel contained calcium, phosphorus, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. The differences were not statistically significant and neither were the calcium phosphorous stoichiometric ratios between the four groups.

CONCLUSIONS

On analyzing the surface characteristics of enamel using SEM between the stripped and unstripped surfaces, there were irregularities and roughness seen in stripped surface whereas honey comb pattern was observed in unstripped enamel surfaces. The elements found in unstripped and stripped enamel surfaces were calcium, phosphorous, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Although the calcium and phosphorus were high in the 0.5 mm IPR group, the difference between stripped and unstripped enamel surfaces was statistically not significant.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There have been concerns that IPR can remove the superficial mineral-rich layer making the deeper layers more susceptible to carious attack. No study has evaluated the mineral content in different layers of enamel in response to IPR in vivo and this study found no significant difference between pristine enamel and enamel subjected to IPR. The results of this study strengthen the validity of the clinical protocol employed.