COMPARISON OF THE CLEANUP OF REMNANT BONDING ADHESIVE FROM THE ENAMEL SURFACE AFTER DEBONDING USING CARBIDE BUR WITH AND WITHOUT ILLUMINATED LIGHT FROM PALATAL TOOTH SURFACE UNDER DRY AND WET CONDITIONS

*Mushahid Hasan, Pradeep Raghav, Dr. Ashutosh Wadhawan, C. Munish Reddy, Amit Khera, Dr. Prashant Sharma

ABSTRACT

Introduction: During fixed mechanotherapy, the bonded brackets can be removed by various methods which leave varying amounts of adhesive remnants on the enamel surface. Various techniques have been designed to achieve satisfactory composite removal with minimal iatrogenic damage to enamel surface. It include pliers and scalers, sandpaper discs, diamond burs stones, ultrasonic instruments and tungsten carbide burs. However, most of these studies rely on quality assurance of finishing procedures performed on the teeth, without estimating time required and the amount of adhesive remnant left after the finishing procedures. So, the main aim of this article was to compare the cleanup of bonding adhesive remnant from the surface of enamel after debonding using carbide bur with blue illuminated light on tooth surface under dry and wet conditions. Methods: An invitro experimental study consisted of four groups of 10 samples in each group. The metal brackets were pressed with the help of force gauge applying a horizontal pressure of 2 ounces using Transbond XT as an adhesive. Debonding of brackets was done using debonding plier in all the groups (Dry, Wet, Dry with Light and Wet with Light). After debonding, Surface reconditioning of enamel surface was performed using finishing tungsten carbide bur followed by polishing with soflex discs. Direct visual analysis analysis was done aftersive removal and after polishing. Enamel surface topography was evaluated using scanning electron microscope. Results: It was found that direct visual analysis and SEM (scanning electron microscope) analysis after adhesive removal, each group showed the presence of soft marks and few evident marks on the enamel surface. It also found that there was significant (p < 0.05) reduction of soft marks after polishing and evident marks were seen in dry condition with blue illuminated light. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was seen in time analysis while comparing all the groups (D, W, DL and WL). Conclusion: When comparing both the conditions (dry and wet) with or without illuminated light; the dry condition with illuminated light provided better adhesive removal, also a significant reduction in the soft and evident marks were seen. Also, the application of auxiliary blue illuminated light reduces the chair side time during polishing.

Keywords: Debonding, Adhesive Removal, Scannng Electron Microscope, Enamel Damage, Surface Roughness, Enamel Scars.