Enamel Surface Roughness of Preferred Debonding and Polishing Protocols

Abstract

Objective This study investigated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with commonly used methods. Methods Part I: a survey was sent to active members of the American Association of Orthodontists to determine popular bonding, debonding, and polishing protocols. Part II: brackets were bonded to the buccal surface of 30 extracted human premolar teeth. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with 12-, 16-, and 20-fluted titanium carbide burs as based upon the survey results. The teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness. Part III: the teeth were further polished using a Reliance Renew polishing point or a prophy cup with pumice and rescanned for surface roughness. Results Part I: the majority of respondents used a generic bracket-removing plier to remove fixed appliances (53%) and a high-speed handpiece for adhesive removal (85%). The most popular bur was a 12-fluted carbide bur without water spray. The majority of respondents used pumice paste and/or Reliance Renew points after adhesive removal. Part II: there was a significant difference in enamel surface roughness when 12-, 16-, and 20-fluted carbide burs were compared via surface profilometry. Part III: further polishing with a Reliance Renew point or a prophy cup and pumice did not provide a significantly smoother surface. Conclusions The results show large variation in debonding and polishing techniques. Creating a smooth enamel surface is equally possible with 12- or 20-fluted carbide burs. Further polishing with pumice and prophy cup or Renew point does not provide an enamel smoother surface.