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 aim of the present study was to evaluate how hydroabrasion performs during composite removal. A standardized amount of composite was bonded to 40 enamel surfaces of extracted third molars, then removed with either a tungsten carbide bur mounted on a micro-motor handpiece without irrigation, a tungsten carbide bur mounted on a micro-motor handpiece with irrigation, a tungsten carbide bur mounted on an air-rotor handpiece, or hydroabrasion. The four treatment methods were compared using the enamel-surface-index and the adhesive-remnant-index and performing a Kruskal-Wallis statistical test to detect differences between each method' scores. Hydroabrasion produced significantly less damage to the enamel surface compared to the other three methods. Hydroabrasion was the cleaning method that produced less damages to the enamel surface, at a cost of a less efficient composite removal than tungsten carbide burs on micro-motor handpiece.

Enamel preservation during composite removal after orthodontic debonding comparing hydroabrasion with rotary instruments