1Assistant Professor of Operative Dentistry, School of Dental, Ilam University of Medical of Sciences, Ilam, Iran
2Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
3General Dentist, Faculty of Dentistry, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
*Corresponding Author E-mail: soltansoltan492@gmail.com
Online published on 1 June, 2024.
Emergence of superficial enamel roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding leads to the accumulation of microbial plaque, resulting in the development of dental caries and compromising the aesthetics and health of the tooth enamel. The objective of this current study is to investigate the Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Brackets Debonding and Surface Polishing with Restorative and Orthodontic Composites.
In the present study, three types of composites were used for bonding metal orthodontic brackets. The samples were randomly divided into three cure groups: XT, GC, and SHOFU. Subsequently, the brackets were debonded, and the target surfaces were treated using a carbide bur for one minute by an operator to remove adhesive remnants and be prepared for bonding. The superficial enamel roughness was then examined. Furthermore, the samples were evaluated for the Adhesive Remnant Index before and after adhesive removal and enamel surface preparation. The data were analyzed using ANOVA test and SPSS software version 22.
The results indicated that there was no significant difference in surface roughness among the tested groups. However, a significant difference was observed between the surface roughness of the experimental groups and the healthy enamel surface (P<0.05). Moreover, among the different experimental groups, there were statistically significant differences in the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) after bracket debonding, before and after enamel surface cleaning. These differences were primarily due to distinctions between the XT and SHOFU groups, as well as between the GC and SHOFU groups. However, there was no significant difference in ARI before and after enamel surface cleaning between the XT and GC groups (P>0.05).
The results of the present study indicate a desirable and acceptable performance of the composite material. It is suggested that future studies focus on a comparative investigation of several cleaning and surface preparation systems.
Surface roughness, Orthodontic bracket, Shofu composite, 3M composite, GC composite
