目的:本研究旨在评估牙釉质表面完整性和使用不同的粘合剂去除毛刺在使用和不使用放大镜的情况下在支架脱粘后去除残余水泥过程中消耗的时间。
方法:收集60颗提取人的前磨牙,清洁,已安装,并准备用于正畸托槽的粘接。根据粘合剂去除方法将牙齿随机分为三个主要组(n=20):碳化钨系统(TC),sof-lex光盘系统(SD),和钻石系统(DB)组。然后,每组被细分为两个亚组(肉眼和放大放大镜亚组)。将支架粘合,然后在24小时后脱粘,并评估了粘合剂残留指数(ARI)。通过不同的系统去除残留的粘合剂,并且通过硅酮OneGloss进行最终抛光。牙釉质表面粗糙度评估之前的支架(T0),去除残余水泥后(T1),最后在抛光后(T2)使用表面MitutoyoSJ-210轮廓术和扫描电子显微镜(SEM)确定牙釉质损伤指数(EDI)评分。以秒为单位记录粘合剂去除所消耗的时间。
结果:KruskalWallis检验显示,与T2相比,亚组之间T1时的粗糙度值具有统计学上的显着差异(p<0.001)。当比较T1和T2时的EDI时,Kruskal-WallisH检验在所有亚组中显示出统计学上的显着差异。两两比较显示,EDI得分在T1和T2时在DB与DB之间显示出统计学上的显着差异。TC和SD(p=0.015),但不在TC与SD(p=1.000),表明在DB组中观察到的最高粗糙度值。放大镜组的骨水泥去除时间明显短于肉眼组,而TC组的骨水泥去除时间最短,而DB组时间最长(p<0.05)。
结论:所有三个系统在临床上都能令人满意地去除残留的正畸粘合剂。然而,TC系统产生的搪瓷粗糙度最低,而DB系统创造了最大的。抛光步骤产生更平滑的表面,而与用于树脂去除的系统无关。
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate enamel surface integrity and time consumed during residual cement removal after bracket debonding using different adhesive removal burs with and without a dental loupe.
METHODS: Sixty human-extracted premolars were collected, cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Teeth were randomly divided into three main groups (n = 20) based on the adhesive removal method: tungsten carbide system (TC), sof-lex discs system (SD), and diamond system (DB) groups. Then, each group was subdivided into two subgroups (naked eye and magnifying loupe subgroups). The brackets were bonded and then debonded after 24 h, and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed by different systems, and the final polishing was performed by Silicone OneGloss. The enamel surface roughness was evaluated before bracketing (T0), after residual cement removal (T1), and finally after polishing (T2) using surface Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine the Enamel Damage Index (EDI) score. The time consumed for adhesive removal was recorded in seconds.
RESULTS: The Kruskal Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in roughness values at T1 compared to T2 between subgroups (p < 0.001). When comparing EDI at T1 and T2, the Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed statistically significant differences in all subgroups. The pairwise comparisons revealed that EDI scores showed a statistically significant difference at T1 and T2 between DB vs. TC and SD (p = 0.015) but not between TC vs. SD (p = 1.000), indicating the highest roughness value observed in the DB group. The time for cement removal was significantly shorter in the magnifying loupe group than in the naked eye group and was shortest with the TC group, whereas the time was the longest with the DB group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: All three systems were clinically satisfactory for residual orthodontic adhesive removal. However, TC system produced the lowest enamel roughness, while the DB system created the greatest. The polishing step created smoother surfaces regardless of the systems used for resin removal.