Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2019 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of the Effects of Various Methods Used to Remove Adhesive from Tooth Surfaces on Surface Roughness and Temperature Changes in the Pulp Chamber

Pages
132–138
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Tungsten carbide and aluminum oxide-based burs generated more heat than Er:YAG laser.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of three methods of removing adhesive on enamel surfaceroughness and dental pulp temperature.Methods: Ninety human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into three groups (n=30) according to the type of adhesiveclean-up procedure: aluminum oxide-based burs, erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and tungsten carbide bur.The surface roughness of enamel was measured using a non-contact optical profilometer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After the first readings of surface roughness were measured (T1), orthodontic brackets were attached to the enamel surface with composite.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Tungsten carbide and aluminum oxide-based burs generated more heat than Er:YAG laser.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of three methods of removing adhesive on enamel surfaceroughness and dental pulp temperature.Methods: Ninety human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into three groups (n=30) according to the type of adhesiveclean-up procedure: aluminum oxide-based burs, erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and tungsten carbide bur.The surface roughness of enamel was measured using a non-contact optical profilometer. After the first readings of surface roughness were measured (T1), orthodontic brackets were attached to the enamel surface with composite. The brackets on the teeth weredebonded using bracket removal pliers. The residue of adhesive was eliminated from the enamel surface of the teeth by differentprocedures in each group. While removing adhesive from the tooth surface, the intrapulpal temperature rise was simultaneouslymeasured using a thermocouple. One-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD tests were used to analyze data with a significance levelset at 0.05.Results: The highest roughness average (Ra) values were observed for the Er:YAG laser group, with a significant difference with thealuminum oxide bur group and tungsten carbide bur group (p<0.001). Ra values for the aluminum oxide bur group were significantlylower than those for the other groups (p<0.001). Comparing the thermal changes in each group showed a significant decrease in theEr:YAG laser group, but a significant increase in two other groups.Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, one-step finisher and polisher bur created the smoothest enamel surface,whereas Er:YAG laser the roughest. Tungsten carbide and aluminum oxide-based burs generated more heat than Er:YAG laser.

🔖

Cite This Article

AMASYALI, M., SABUNCUOĞLU, F. A., ERŞAHAN, Ş., OKTAY, E. A. (2019). Comparison of the Effects of Various Methods Used to Remove Adhesive from Tooth Surfaces on Surface Roughness and Temperature Changes in the Pulp Chamber. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 3, 132–138. https://ajindex.com/articles/375061

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. David VA, Staley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR. Remnant Amount and Clean up for 3 Adhesives After Debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Peretz B, Ram D. Restorative material for children's teeth: preferences of parents and children. ASDC J Dent Child 2002
  3. Nyborg H, Brannstrom M. Pulp reaction to heat. J Prosthet Dent 1968
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Mueller J, Yang F, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM Surface 3D dimensional topography analysis of materials and finishing procedures after resinous infiltration of subsurfacebovineenamellesions. Quintessence Int 2011
  5. Kohara EK, Hossain M, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K, Inoue M, Sasa R. Morphological and microleakage studies of the cavities prepared byEr:YAG laser irradiation in primary teeth. J Clin Laser Med Surg 2002
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Stabholz A, Sahar-Helft S, Moshonov J. Lasers in endodontics. DentClin North Am 2004
  7. [CrossRef] 7. Yassaei S, Aghili H, Joshan N. Effects of removing adhesive from tooth surfaces by Er:YAG laser and a composite bur on enamel surface roughness and pulpchamber temperature. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015
  8. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Stepien P, Szatkiewicz T, Sporniak-Tutak K, et al. Effect of orthodontic debonding and residual adhesive removal on 3D enamel microroughness. PeerJ 2016
  9. e2558. [CrossRef] 9. Eminkahyagil, N, Korkma Y, Gökalp S, Başeren M. Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets with Newly Developed Antibacterial Self Etch Adhesive. Angle Orthod 2005
  10. Coups-Smith, KS, Rossouw PE, Titley KC. Glass ionomer cements as luting agents for orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2003
  11. Büyükyılmaz T, Üşümez, S, Karaman AI. Effect of Self Etching Primers on Bond Strength-Are They Reliable? Angle Orthod 2003
  12. Sayınsu K, Işık F, Sezen S, Aydemir B. New Protective Polish Effects on Shear Bond Strength of Brackets. Angle Orthod 2006
  13. Çehreli ZC, Keçik D, Kocadereli I. Effect of Self-Etching Primer and Adhesive Formulations on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005
  14. [CrossRef] 14. Zeppieri IL, Chung CH, Mante FK. Effect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003
  15. [CrossRef] 15. Oztürk B, Uşümez A, Oztürk AN, Ozer F. In vitro assessment of te