ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2020
Comparison of the Enamel Surface Roughness from Different Polishing Methods: Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy Investigation.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Effect of COLasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Does attachment removal damage enamel? Influence of adhesive, resin, and bur on surface integrity.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- The enamel loss and adhesive remnants after bracket removal and various adhesive removal methods: an in vitro experimental study.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Integrated Characterization by EDS and Roughness as a Diagnostic Tool for Dental Enamel Degradation: An In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Orthodontic Bracket Removal and Enamel Roughness: Comparing the Effects of Sapphire and Metallic Brackets in an In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Differences of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with tungsten carbide, steel bur, and adhesive removing plier.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Article
- The interplay between toothbrush stiffness and charcoal-containing dentifrice on the development of enamel topography changes.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Enamel surface roughness after orthodontic adhesive removal: an in vitro study comparing four clearance methods.European oral research · 2024Article
- Article
- In Vitro Study on the Influence of the Buccal Surface Convexity of the Tooth upon Enamel Loss after Bracket Removal.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Novel Technique of Interproximal Enamel Reduction Based on Computer-Aided Navigation Technique-An In Vitro Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Influence of Various Adhesive Systems and Polishing Methods on Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets: A Three-Dimensional In Vitro Evaluation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of enamel roughness after orthodontic debonding and clean-up procedures using zirconia, tungsten carbide, and white stone burs: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Enamel Remineralization Competence of a Novel Fluoride-Incorporated Bioactive Glass Toothpaste-A Surface Micro-Hardness, Profilometric, and Micro-Computed Tomographic Analysis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the enamel surface roughness created by four polishing methods after debonding, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). MATERIALS AND
methodsFour experimental polishing groups (Sof-Lex disc, SD; sandblaster, SB; tungsten carbide bur, TB; and white stone bur, WB) and one control group were selected from 100 premolars ( STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Differences among the polishing methods were compared with analysis of variance and Fisher's least significant difference test at
resultsBoth microscopic evaluations indicated that the surface with the greatest roughness herein belonged to the SD group, followed by that for SB, TB, and WB groups. AFM measurements indicated a maximum postdebonding Rq herein for the WB group and a significantly greater surface roughness for the TB and WB groups than for the SD and SB groups. Among the experimental groups, SEM followed by modified ESI evaluations revealed similar data to those obtained with AFM. Significant differences were seen among all paired groups, except for that between the SB and TB groups.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, all four polishing methods were concluded to be clinically acceptable for removing residual orthodontic adhesives.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.