Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38509532›Full record

Trial reportBMC oral health2024

Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system.

Labib Ghaleb, Naseem Ali Al-Worafi, Ahmed Thawaba, Abbas Ahmed Abdulqader, Aqlan Alkamel, Yaser Abdo, Zhao Yang, Nashwan Noman, Maged Ali Al-Aroomi, Tian Yulou

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Labib Ghaleb *Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110002, China.
Naseem Ali Al-Worafi *Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110002, China.
Ahmed ThawabaOrthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Abbas Ahmed AbdulqaderDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, College of Dentistry, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Aqlan AlkamelDepartment of orthodontics, College of dentistry, Manila central university, Manila, Philippines.
Yaser AbdoDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110002, China.
Zhao YangDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110002, China.
Nashwan NomanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Taiz University, Taiz, Yemen.
Maged Ali Al-AroomiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen.
Tian YulouDepartment of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110002, China. yltian@cmu.edu.cn.
China Medical University · CNIbb University · YEMansoura University · EGSichuan University · CNTaiz University · YE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate enamel surface integrity and time consumed during residual cement removal after bracket debonding using different adhesive removal burs with and without a dental loupe. MATERIAL AND

methodsSixty human-extracted premolars were collected, cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Teeth were randomly divided into three main groups (n = 20) based on the adhesive removal method: tungsten carbide system (TC), sof-lex discs system (SD), and diamond system (DB) groups. Then, each group was subdivided into two subgroups (naked eye and magnifying loupe subgroups). The brackets were bonded and then debonded after 24 h, and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed by different systems, and the final polishing was performed by Silicone OneGloss. The enamel surface roughness was evaluated before bracketing (T0), after residual cement removal (T1), and finally after polishing (T2) using surface Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine the Enamel Damage Index (EDI) score. The time consumed for adhesive removal was recorded in seconds.

resultsThe Kruskal Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in roughness values at T1 compared to T2 between subgroups (p < 0.001). When comparing EDI at T1 and T2, the Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed statistically significant differences in all subgroups. The pairwise comparisons revealed that EDI scores showed a statistically significant difference at T1 and T2 between DB vs. TC and SD (p = 0.015) but not between TC vs. SD (p = 1.000), indicating the highest roughness value observed in the DB group. The time for cement removal was significantly shorter in the magnifying loupe group than in the naked eye group and was shortest with the TC group, whereas the time was the longest with the DB group (p < 0.05).

conclusionAll three systems were clinically satisfactory for residual orthodontic adhesive removal. However, TC system produced the lowest enamel roughness, while the DB system created the greatest. The polishing step created smoother surfaces regardless of the systems used for resin removal.

Indexed as

Dental CementsOrthodontic BracketsTungsten CompoundsBicuspidDental DebondingDental EnamelGlass Ionomer CementsHumansSurface PropertiesDental CementsGlass Ionomer Cementstungsten carbideTungsten CompoundsBracketsDebondingMagnifying loupeOrthodontic adhesiveSurface roughness

Identifiers

PMID38509532
PMCPMC10953161
OpenAlexW4393004318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.