ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2025
Evaluation of Enamel Surface Roughness and Volumetric Change after Resin Remnant Removal following Orthodontic Bracket Debonding.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate surface roughness and volumetric change of enamel after using different resin remnant removal (RRR) techniques, following orthodontic bracket debonding. MATERIALS AND
methodsMetal orthodontic brackets (Mini Twin Brackets, RMO) were bonded to 60 human (central or lateral) labial mid-third surfaces, and debonded 24 h after by a single orthodontist. The remaining composites were completely removed with the fluorescence light guidance by the D-Light-Pro led curing unit (GC/detection mode). The removal procedures were performed without magnification (n = 30) or with 20× magnification/5500 K illumination by a dental microscope (OMS2000, Zumax) (n = 30). Three RRR techniques were used: 12-bladed carbide bur (Horico), red-banded diamond bur (Horico), SofLex Disc (medium/40 μm, fine/24 μm, and superfine/8 µm; 3M). Surface changes were evaluated visually through microscope photographs by enamel surface index (ESI) and volumetrically by overlapping the three-dimensional images of a laser scanner device (LAS-20, SD-Mechatronik) in the Geomagic Design X (3D Systems) software. The deemed significance was set at 0.050 for the statistical analyses.
resultsA positive, strong correlation was found between visual and volumetric change scores (P 0.001). Lesser volumetric loss (P 0.001) and roughness (P = 0.009) were observed for all RRR techniques when the magnification was used. Volumetric loss (mm3) by diamond bur was significantly the highest [1.85(1-3)a], followed by SofLex Disc [1.1(1-1)c] and carbide bur [0.59(0-1)b](P 0.001). Visual surface roughness scores (Ra) were significantly higher for diamond bur [4.5(4-5)b](P 0.001), followed by carbide bur 2(1-3)a and SofLex Disc 1(1-2)a.
conclusionSurface roughness should always be assessed together with the volumetric enamel loss for the selection of RRR technique. Red-banded diamond bur should not be used for RRR. Even though the least surface roughness can be provided by SofLex Disc system, it can provide more intact enamel surface loss than the carbide bur. Magnification was considered useful for the RRR to provide a smoother surface while better preserving the intact enamel tissue.
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.