Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2025
Development of Amelogenin-chitosan Hydrogel for In Vitro Enamel Regrowth with a Dense Interface
Published on: July 10, 2014
Does staining orthodontic adhesive provide an advantage in adhesive resin removal and enamel roughness? An in vitro
Nehal F Albelasy1, Ahmad M Hafez1, Dina S Farahat2
1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Background:
The removal of adhesive remnants after bracket debonding has been shown to cause damaging effects on the enamel surface. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of stained adhesive remnant removal (ARR) on enamel roughness compared to translucent composite.
Material And Methods:
Thirty extracted premolar teeth were divided equally into three groups; conventional composite control group (CC), stained composite group (SC) and stained bonding solution group (SB). The buccal surface of each tooth was cleaned, dried and the surface roughness (Ra) was evaluated using a contact prophylometer (T0). After bracket debonding, a high-speed carbide bur under a water-cooling system was used for ARR in one direction and the time consumed for ARR was recorded. After ARR, the second mean Ra values were recorded (T1). The samples were then polished using polishing paste with low-speed rubber cup and the third mean Ra values were recorded (T2).
Results:
Repeated one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the mean Ra values at T0, T1 and T2 within each group P<0.05. A statistically significant difference in the changes of the mean Ra values after ARR (T1-T0) and after polishing (T1-T2) was found between the CC group and both SC and SB groups. A significant difference in the time consumed for ARR was found between the three groups with CC group being the most time-consuming group.
Conclusion:
Stained composite material followed by the stained bonding solution provided better visibility during ARR with lower mean Ra values and less time for ARR compared totranslucent composite material.
