• Users Online: 395
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 51  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 177-184

Evaluation of enamel loss with bonding and debonding: Astudy with profile projector


1 Asst. Prof., Department of Orthodontics, Career Dental College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Prof. and HOD, Department of Orthodontics, Subharti Dental College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Prof, Department of Orthodontics, Subharti Dental College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
4 Department of Orthodontics, Subharti University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Juhi Yadav
Department of Orthodontics, Career Dental College, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jios.jios_34_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Accidental detachment of brackets is a common problem in orthodontic bonding and removal of the residual resin certainly results in some amount of enamel loss. Aims: The present study was undertaken to measure and compare the amount of enamel loss with different prophylactic methods and to check which method results in the least amount of enamel loss. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty human premolars extracted for orthodontic treatment purpose were included in the study and divided into three groups of forty samples each: Group1(tungsten carbide bur), Group2 (diamond bur), and Group3(soflex disc). The groups were further subdivided into subgroups(a and b) of twenty samples each for different etching times. The enamel loss was measured with profile projector. Results: The mean enamel loss for different subgroups was as follows-subgroup1a tungsten carbide bur with etching time of 20 s=69.06 μm and subgroup1b tungsten carbide bur with etching time of 40 s=70 μm, subgroup2a diamond bur with etching time of 20 s=76 μm and subgroup2b diamond bur with etching time of 40 s=76.12μm, and subgroup3a soflex disc with etching time of 20 s=68.32 μm and subgroup3b soflex disc with etching time of 40 s=72.24 μm. Statistical Analysis: Analysis of variance showed a significant difference(P<0.05) in mean enamel loss between three prophylactic methods using different etching times. Unpaired t-test showed no significant difference in mean enamel loss between 20 and 40 s of etching time within groups. Conclusion: It is concluded that tungsten carbide bur resulted in the least amount of enamel loss and gouging and scarring is minimum when viewed with naked eye.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed680    
    Printed13    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded81    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal