ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2021
A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of resin remnant removal techniques on enamel and composite restoration surfaces after orthodontic debonding.Odontology · 2026Article
- Effect of multi-system polishing on shear bond strength of nanohybrid composites to enamel: anPeerJ · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Enamel Surface Roughness and Volumetric Change after Resin Remnant Removal following Orthodontic Bracket Debonding.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAt 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.
aimThe 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.
methodsFifty-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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsThere 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.
Indexed as
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.