English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The search for an efficient and safe resin removal method after debonding has resulted in the introduction of a wide array of instruments and techniques. Previously, safety of rotary instruments was limited to inspecting the surface under a scanning electron microscope that lacks a quantitative scale. In this study, comparative assessment of the enamel roughness was done quantitavely using surface profilometer. Objectives: To evaluate quantitatively the enamel surface roughness following debonding using three different resin removal methods (composite removing pliers, ultrasonic scaler and low speed Tungsten Carbide bur). Study Design: Prospective study. Setting: Orthodontic clinic of Ihsan Mumtaz Hospital Lahore and PCSIR (Lahore). Period: 6 months from June 2018 to December 2018. Material and Methods: Ninety, healthy extracted maxillary premolars were taken and subjected to profilometric analysis to register four roughness parameters. Brackets were bonded and all specimens were immersed in distilled water for one week. After debonding, teeth were randomly divided into three groups and subjected to different resin removal methods. A second roughness recording was taken and compared with roughness at baseline interval. Enamel surface roughness with three resin removal methods were also compared with one other. Data Analysis: SPSS Version 20.0 was used. Paired t test was applied within three groups separately to establish the comparison between the enamel surface roughnesses at baseline. One way ANOVA was used to establish the comparison of increase in enamel surface roughness among three study groups compared using different resin removal methods (slow speed tungsten carbide bur, ultrasonic scaler and composite removing pliers). Results: Slow speed tungsten carbide bur created the least increase in enamel surface roughness while ultra-sonic scaler had the most elevated values. Conclusion: Enamel surface roughness following debonding can be minimized with the use of tungsten carbide bur for resin removal in a slow speed hand piece.

Enamel surface roughness assessment after debonding, employing three different removal methods.