ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the debonding phase every clinician has to take care of preserving the enamel structure and tooth temperature. The objective of this study is to analyze in vitro the increase of the pulp chamber temperature and the wearing of enamel surface, during adhesive removal after debonding. METHODS: 60 extracted human teeth were selected. An orthodontic bracket was bonded on each tooth and after bracket removal, intraoral scanner pictures were used to evaluate ARI for each tooth. 3 different burs were tested: Tungsten-carbide multiple blade, Arkansas stone and Ceramic bur. A mechanical arm controlled by a dedicated software was used to reproduce a repeatable act of composite removal. To analyze in vitro the pulp chamber temperature during the composite removal procedure, teeth were treated endodontically placing a thermocouple through the root canal from the apex. A software registered temperature changes in a continuous manner. The enamel surface of every tooth was tested after the removal of composite with an optical stereoscopic microscope. RESULTS: An association existed between maximum internal pulp chamber temperature variation and irrigation (P-value < 0.0001) and between maximum internal pulp chamber temperature variation and bur type (P-value = 0.0133), with a significantly lower temperature increase produced by the Arkansas bur. A significant difference among groups was detected for ESI and EDI assessment (P-value = 0.002, P-value = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the initial setup, temperature variation analysis showed more conservative results using the Arkansas burs with irrigation. ESI and EDI indexes showed significant enamel surface damage using Tungsten-carbide burs.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Rapid palatal expansion is a common therapy during orthodontic treatment and could be a preliminary step for correcting different malocclusions; furthermore, this treatment could be necessary at any age. Different anchorage approaches have been proposed to obtain an effective skeletal result, although every device produces both dental and skeletal effects. This study aimed to compare the dentoskeletal effects of a bone-borne palatal expander considering 2 groups of patients of different ages. METHODS: Twenty-four patients consecutively treated were included in the study; patients were divided into 2 groups according to their age: group 1 with age ≤16 years and group 2 patients >16 years. All patients had a preexpansion cone-beam computed tomography scan; a second scan was required at the end of activations. All patients received a bone-borne appliance anchored on 4 miniscrews. RESULTS: Significant intragroup differences were found for maxillary width and dental diameters. No significant differences were found between groups with regard to longitudinal changes, except for the maxillary right plane. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bone-borne maxillary expansion was effective in generating palatal widening both in growing and young adult patients. No significant skeletal or dental differences were found between groups.
