Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2026
Pilot In Vitro Study to Assess Cleaning Ability and Effects of Different Decontamination Methods on Implant Surfaces
Published on: November 21, 2025
Evaluation of enamel surface after removal of clear aligner composite attachments using different methods: An
Bruna Caroline Tomé Barreto1, Gabriela Drago Vidal1, Eduardo Franzotti Sant'Anna1
1Graduate Program in Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Objective:
To evaluate bovine enamel surfaces after removal of clear aligner composite attachments using different methods, considering temperature, noise and vibration generated by rotating instruments. The null hypothesis stated that there would be no differences among methods.
Material And Methods:
A total of 56 specimens were randomly assigned to seven groups according to the removal technique: pencil-tip diamond bur at high-speed (CG); latch-lock multiblade bur at low-speed (LG); friction-grip multiblade bur at high-speed without irrigation (HG); friction-grip multiblade bur at high-speed with irrigation (HIG); aluminium-oxide tips at low-speed (AOG); Sof-Lex™ Pop-On discs at low-speed (SLG), applied from coarse to fine; and Enhance silicone tips at low-speed (EG). Surface roughness was measured using a 3D optical profilometer (Nanovea PS50) and microhardness with a Knoop microhardness tester (Buehler MICROMET 5104). During composite removal, temperature was monitored with a digital infrared thermometer (Lasergrip GM 400), noise with a decibel metre (DL-1100), and vibration with a vibration metre (WT63A).
Results:
AOG produced the highest mean vibration (2.6 ± 0.4 mm/s; P < 0.001), LG generated the highest mean temperature (31 ± 1.2°C; P < 0.001) and CG produced the highest mean noise levels (90.3 ± 2.1 dB; P < 0.001). SLG showed the smallest mean change in roughness (ΔRa: 0.46 ± 0.57).
Conclusion:
All removal methods increased enamel roughness and reduced microhardness, with significant differences in temperature, noise and vibration. AOG and SLG caused less enamel damage and better surface preservation, indicating they may represent safer clinical options. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected.
