Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding--time taken and surface enamel appearance.
Four different methods of in vitro residual composite removal following debonding performed by two different operators (an orthodontist and a hygienist) were assessed for enamel surface damage (using scanning electron microscopy) and the time involved. There was no difference in the quality of enamel surface appearance between the two operators, regardless of the method used for composite removal. There was a statistically significant difference (P less than 0.05) for the time taken for composite removal between the two operators using a tungsten carbide bur method only. It is suggested that an expanded duties auxiliary with the practical skills of the hygienist would be able to remove residual composite debris and produce a satisfactory polished enamel surface using tungsten carbide burs and aluminium oxide polishing discs, thus becoming a safe and cost-effective member of the orthodontic team.
Oliver
R G
RG
Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, Heath Park, Cardiff.
Griffiths
J
J
D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D017005:Dental Debonding / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D003756:Dental Hygienists; D003777:Dental Prophylaxis / Q000295:instrumentation; D012534:Dental Scaling / Q000295:instrumentation; D006801:Humans; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D009970:Orthodontics; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors; D014464:Ultrasonic Therapy / Q000295:instrumentation
D003188:Composite Resins