Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39588479›Full record

ArticleEuropean oral research2024

Enamel surface roughness after orthodontic adhesive removal: an in vitro study comparing four clearance methods.

Denisa Raticová, Magadalena Koťová, Aleš Bezrouk, Leo Sala, Petra Křížová, Wanda Urbanová, Aleš Leger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European oral research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Denisa RaticováDepartment of Stomatology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Kralovské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
Magadalena KoťováDepartment of Stomatology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Kralovské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
Aleš BezroukDepartment of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
Leo SalaJ. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, Prague, Czech Republic.
Petra KřížováDental Hygiene Study Programme, 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Wanda UrbanováFaculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University in Prague, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Aleš LegerFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University, 775 15 Olomouc, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Adhesive remnants removal is the last key step influencing orthodontic treatment outcomes. Four different clearance methods (CM) of orthodontic adhesive were evaluated to determine, which achieved the smoothest enamel surface in the shortest time. Materials and methods: 75 intact premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were included, sixty had an orthodontic bracket bonded and subsequently removed, and fifteen served as the control group. Four CMs were used to clear the tooth surface of 15 premolars each: carbide bur (CB), carbide bur with titanium nitride surface treatment + fine carbide bur (CBCB), glass fiber-reinforced composite instrument (GFCB), zirconia bur + glass fiber-reinforced composite bur (ZBCB). The processing time was recorded. In ten premolars from each group, the enamel surface was evaluated by atomic force microscopy estimating mean roughness (Ra), roughness profile value (Rq), and roughness depth (Rt). Enamel Damage Index (EDI) was assessed with a scanning electron microscope on 5 remaining premolars. Results: Significant differences were observed in all evaluated parameters - Ra (p<0.0001), Rq (p<0.0001), and Rt (p<0.0001). GFCB exhibited the smoothest surface in all parameters. The lowest EDI exhibited teeth treated by GFCB, however, the differences were not significant. Working with GFCB took the longest time (mean 116 s), and the shortest with CBCB (mean 49 s). Conclusion: Using CB is the fastest clearance method, but the enamel surface roughness was highest. Clearing with a set of instruments CBCB proved to be a fast method with satisfying remaining enamel roughness.

Indexed as

adhesiveclearance methodEnamel roughnessorthodonticstooth surface

Identifiers

PMID39588479
PMCPMC11586038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.