ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: At the completion of treatment, the orthodontic practitioner's goal is to effectively remove all traces of adhesive and return enamel to its initial state. With the advent of new polishing systems being released each year, there may be one product that is superior to others. AIM: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of new polishing systems (in the last 5-10 years) used in general dentistry on enamel surface roughness following debond utilizing profilometery and scanning electron microscopy and compare them to established orthodontic polishing systems results. METHODS: Fifty-two mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to one of five test groups (N = 10) and two incisors (untreated enamel) were used for profilometer and scanning electron microscopy analysis at the end of testing. After bracket removal, the teeth were polished using traditional polishing products (Komet H48L bur, Reliance 'Renew' point) and newer polishing products (Coltene Spiral Composite Plus Polisher, Ultradent Jiffy Composite Polishing Spiral or 3M Sof-Lex™ Diamond Polishing System). The results were evaluated using a profilometer and scanning electron microscopy images. RESULTS: The results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that the mean change in enamel surface roughness was not statistically different both in the traditional and novel groups. Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test found that there was no statistically significant difference in the change in enamel surface roughness between instrument groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in enamel surface roughness after polishing between traditional orthodontic polishing systems and the selected novel polishing systems. SEM analysis revealed similar findings. This supports previous research suggesting that a wide variety of polishing systems or none at all, may be used to restore enamel smoothness after removal of orthodontic appliances.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine and compare nickel and chromium ion release from traditional stainless steel and nickel titanium wires and newer esthetic archwires under different pH conditions, for different time intervals. METHODS: Ten pieces of 10-mm segments of five different orthodontic archwires were submerged in buffer solutions of pH 4.0, 5.5, and 7.0, for 4 and 13 weeks. The sample solutions were analyzed using ICP-MS. First, the results were analyzed by three-way ANOVA to determine any significant differences in metal concentration (ppb) between the different groups. Then, a post-hoc multiple pairwise comparison by Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test was conducted to further compare the different materials and pH conditions. RESULTS: For nickel, uncoated NiTi had the highest nickel ion release (ppb), while AO Iconix had the lowest average nickel ion release, with a significant difference (p < 0.0001). The average nickel release increased with time and decreased with pH. For chromium, materials with uncoated stainless steel had the highest average chromium ion release, whereas AO Iconix had the lowest average chromium ion release, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001). Chromium ion release increased with time and decreased with pH. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in metal ion release between different pH conditions, materials, and time points. The metal ion release increased with increase in time and decrease in pH. Overall, the coated archwires showed less metal ion release than the uncoated wires.
