title: Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up -comparison of three different tools.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The present study aimed at 3D analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss following the debonding of orthodontic molar tubes and orthodontic clean-up to assess the effectiveness and safety of One-Step Finisher and Polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover in comparison to tungsten carbide bur.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty human molars were bonded with chemical-cure orthodontic adhesive (Unite, 3M, USA), stored 24 h in 0.9 % saline solution, debonded and cleaned using three methods (Three groups of ten): tungsten carbide bur (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany), one-step finisher and polisher (One gloss, Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan) and Adhesive Residue Remover (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany). Direct 3D scanning in blue-light technology to the nearest 2 μm was performed before etching and after adhesive removal. Adhesive remnant height and volume as well as enamel loss depth and volume were calculated. An index of effectiveness and safety was proposed and calculated for every tool; adhesive remnant volume and duplicated enamel lost volume were divided by a sum of multiplicands. Comparisons using parametric ANOVA or nonparametric ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare between tools for adhesive remnant height and volume, enamel loss depth and volume as well as for the proposed index.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No statistically significant differences in the volume (p = 0.35) or mean height (p = 0.24) of adhesive remnants were found (ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis test) between the groups of teeth cleaned using different tools. Mean volume of enamel loss was 2.159 mm(3) for tungsten carbide bur, 1.366 mm(3) for Shofu One Gloss and 0.659 mm(3) for Adhesive Residue Remover - (F = 2.816, p = 0.0078). A comparison of the proposed new index between tools revealed highly statistically significant differences (p = 0.0081), supporting the best value for Adhesive Residue Remover and the worst - for tungsten carbide bur.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The evaluated tools were all characterized by similar effectiveness. The most destructive tool with regards to enamel was the tungsten carbide bur, and the least was Adhesive Residue Removal.
authors.affiliation: Department of General Dentistry Pomeranian Medical, University of Szczecin, Al. Powstancow Wlkp. 72, 70-111, Szczecin, Poland. jjo@pum.edu.pl.
authors.forename: Joanna
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Janiszewska-Olszowska
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Koszalin, University of Technology, ul. Raclawicka 15-17, 75-620, Koszalin, Poland. katarzyna.tandecka@tu.koszalin.pl.
authors.forename: Katarzyna
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Tandecka
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Koszalin, University of Technology, ul. Raclawicka 15-17, 75-620, Koszalin, Poland. tomasz.szatkiewicz@tu.koszalin.pl.
authors.forename: Tomasz
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Szatkiewicz
authors.affiliation: Department of Technology and Education, ul. Śniadeckich 2, 75-453, Koszalin, Poland. piotr.stepien@tu.koszalin.pl.
authors.forename: Piotr
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Stępień
authors.affiliation: Clinic of Maxillofacial Surgery Pomeranian Medical, University of Szczecin, Al. Powstancow Wlkp. 72, 70-111, Szczecin, Poland. katarzyna@aestheticdent.pl.
authors.forename: Katarzyna
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Sporniak-Tutak
authors.affiliation: Department of General Dentistry Pomeranian Medical, University of Szczecin, Al. Powstancow Wlkp. 72, 70-111, Szczecin, Poland. kgrocholewicz@o2.pl.
authors.forename: Katarzyna
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Grocholewicz
mesh_terms: D003738:Dental Cements; D003743:Dental Enamel; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000295:instrumentation; D006801:Humans; D008963:Molar; D017973:Tungsten Compounds
chemical_list: D003738:Dental Cements; D017973:Tungsten Compounds; C002802:tungsten carbide