ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
3-Dimensional topographic enamel surface changes after different debonding techniques for aligner attachments: a micro-CT study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of bleaching agents containing nano-hydroxyapatite on sound and demineralized enamel: an in vitro study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Impacts of clean-up visualization techniques on excess composite of orthodontic attachments.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Does attachment removal damage enamel? Influence of adhesive, resin, and bur on surface integrity.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- Enamel Integrity and Residual Composite Following Clear Aligner Attachment Removal: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2026Review
- Advances in clear aligner therapy: comparative evaluation of the optical properties and bacterial adhesion of 3D direct-printed and thermoformed aligners.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate topographic changes of enamel surface in 3-dimensional after different debonding methods of aligner attachments formed with 2 different composite resins.
methodsVertical rectangular attachments were created on 88 premolar teeth and divided into two composite resin groups (Group 1:flowable, Group 2:packable) (N = 44). These were then divided into two subgroups (N = 22) using different debonding methods. In Group A, the attachments were firstly removed using an attachment debonding plier and then with white fiberglass. Following, the tooth surfaces were polished with blue fiberglass. In Group B, the excess attachment composite was removed with a 12-blade carbide bur, followed by a 24-blade carbide bur, and tooth surfaces were polished with Renew stone. The remaining composite volume was measured using Geomagic Control X software. Enamel surface roughness and morphological change were compared between the groups.
resultsResidual composite resin volume did not show a statistically significant difference between composite resin groups (1-2 A). The enamel demineralization volume and area changes in Group 2 A were significantly higher than observed in 2B (p < 0.05). Roughness parameters Ra (T1-T0), Ra (T2-T0), Rq (T1-T0), and Sa (T1-T0) were significantly higher in Group 1B compared to Group 1 A (p < 0.05). Similarly, Ra (T1-T0), Sa (T1-T0), and Sq (T1-T0) parameters were significantly higher in Group 2B compared to Group 2 A (p < 0.05).
conclusionsFiberglass with a debonding plier produced a smoother enamel surface compared to carbide burs, but caused significantly more enamel demineralization, as seen in micro-CT evaluations after polishing.
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.