Comparative analysis of different prophylatic methods on primary teeth enamel roughness

<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to perform an experimental quantitative comparison of primary teeth enamel alterations under three commonly prophylaxis surface polishing treatments. <strong>Material and </strong><strong>Methods: </strong>36 healthy primary teeth naturally exfoliated were selected and randomly separated in three groups. Group I was treated with a rotary instrument set at a low speed, rubber cup and a mixture of water and pumice; group II with a rotary instrument set at a low speed, rubber cup and prophylaxis paste Herjos-F (Vigodent S/A Indústria e Comércio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); and group III with sodium bicarbonate spray Profi II Ceramic (Dabi Atlante Indústrias Médico Odontológicas Ltda, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil). All procedures were performed by the same operator for ten seconds, and samples were rinsed and stored in distilled water. Pre-and post-treatment surface evaluation was completed using a surface profilometer Mitutoyo SJ400. <strong>Results: </strong>The results of this study were statistically analyzed with the GraphPad PRISM (version 6, 2010). The pumice and water led to significantly rougher surfaces than other groups in Tukey’s test (Group I: 1.22 Ra; Group II 0.38 Ra; Group III: 1.01 Ra). Pre-and post-treatment comparison revealed significantly rougher enamel surface with pumice. <strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this study, it can be concluded that there was an increased enamel surface roughness when teeth were treated with pumice and water in comparison to bicarbonate spray and prophylaxis paste.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Dental enamel; Dental prophylaxis; Jet abrasive system; Enamel roughness; Primary teeth.<strong> <br clear="all" /> </strong></p>

Enamel Roughness Changes after Removal of Orthodontic Adhesive

The aim of this study was to evaluate enamel roughness, quality of the enamel surfaces and time duration comparing different orthodontic adhesive removal protocols. Premolars were used to test three adhesive removal methods (n = 20): five-blade carbide bur, 30-blade carbide bur, and ultrasonic diamond bur. Bracket was bonded using TransbondTM XT adhesive. Roughness with different parameters was measured before bracket bonding and after adhesive remnants removal. Micromorphological analysis of enamel surface (n = 5) was performed by SEM images and categorized in enamel damage index—“perfect”; “satisfying”; “imperfect”; and “unacceptable”. Time was measured in seconds. All removal methods caused increased roughness in relation to Ra, Rq, and Rz parameters (X axis) comparing to healthy enamel surface. Enamel surface resulted from removal using five-blade burs was scored as satisfactory. Carbide bur groups decreased the roughness values of Ra, Rq, and Rz parameters on the Y axis and enamel surface was considered unacceptable. The 30-blade group increased symmetry (Rsk) and flattening (Rku) parameters of roughness and surface was scored as unsatisfactory. Diamond bur removed adhesive in 54.8 s, faster than five-blade carbide bur. The five-blade bur group resulted in less enamel roughness than the 30-blade and diamond groups.