Aligner Ataşmanlarının Sökümü Sonrası Mine Pürüzlülüğü: El Aleti Tipinin ve Frez Bıçak Sayısının Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, diş hareketini kolaylaştırmak ve tutuculuğu artırmak amacıyla şeffaf plak tedavisinde kullanılan ataşmanlar için farklı söküm (debonding) protokollerini değerlendirmek ve karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmada toplam 60 adet çekilmiş insan dişi kullanılmıştır. Başlangıç değerlerini (T0) belirlemek amacıyla örneklerin ilk yüzey pürüzlülük parametreleri (Ra, Rz) bir kontakt profilometre kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Örnekler; iki yüksek hız konfigürasyonu (Fast_8, Fast_18) ve iki farklı tipte 8 bıçaklı frezin kullanıldığı bir düşük hız grubundan (Slow_8) oluşan üç deney grubuna rastgele atanmıştır. RA frezler 8 bıçaklı konfigürasyona sahipken, FG frezler hem 8 bıçaklı hem de 18 bıçaklı varyantları içermektedir. Yapıştırma işlemi öncesinde dişler bir ark üzerinde dizilerek taranmış, ardından ataşman şablonları tasarlanmış ve kompozit ataşmanlar yapıştırılmıştır. Belirlenen frezlerle söküm işlemi gerçekleştirildikten sonra son yüzey pürüzlülüğü yeniden ölçülmüştür. Gruplar arasındaki farkları değerlendirmek için yapılan istatistiksel analizlerde anlamlılık düzeyi %5 (p < 0,05) olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Tüm gruplarda adeziv temizliği sonrası Ra ve Rz değerlerinde anlamlı artış gözlendi (p < 0,001). Her iki parametre için de güçlü "önce-sonra" etkileri saptandı. Protokol ve yüzey değişimleri arasında anlamlı bir etkileşim bulundu. Fast_8 protokolü en yüksek pürüzlülük artışına neden olurken (ΔRa=0,655 µm; ΔRz=3,492 µm), Slow_8 (p < 0,001) ve Fast_18'den anlamlı derecede yüksek değerler sergiledi. Fast_18 orta düzeyde etkiler gösterirken, en düşük değişimler Slow_8 grubunda (ΔRa=0,194 µm; ΔRz=1,457 µm) görüldü. Sonuç: Adeziv temizleme protokolleri mine bütünlüğünü önemli ölçüde etkilemektedir. Düşük hızlı sistemler veya daha yüksek bıçak sayısına sahip (18 bıçaklı) yüksek hızlı frezler, 8 bıçaklı yüksek hızlı protokollere kıyasla ataşman sökümü sırasında mine hasarını minimize etmektedir.

Keywords

• Ortodonti
• Ataşman
• Şeffaf Plak
• Söküm
• Yüzey Pürüzlülüğü

Enamel Roughness After Aligner Attachment Debonding: Impact of Handpiece Type and Bur Flute Count

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of the current study was to assess and compare different debonding protocols for attachments used in clear aligner therapy. Materials and Methods: 60 extracted human teeth were utilized in this study. Initial surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rz) of the specimens were measured using a contact profilometer to establish baseline values (T0). The samples were randomly assigned to three experimental groups consisting of two high-speed configurations (Fast_8, Fast_18) and one low-speed group utilizing two different types of 8-blade burs (Slow_8). The RA burs had an 8-blade configuration, whereas the FG burs included both 8-blade and 18-blade variants. Prior to bonding, the teeth were aligned on an arch, scanned, attachment templates were designed and composite attachments are bonded. After the debonding process was performed with the designated burs, final surface roughness was re-measured. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate differences between the groups, with the level of significance set at 5% (p < 0.05). Results: All groups showed significant increases in Ra and Rz after adhesive removal (p < .001). Strong pre-post effects were detected for both parameters. A significant interaction was found between the protocol and surface changes. The Fast_8 protocol resulted in the highest roughness increase (ΔRa=0.655 µm; ΔRz=3.492 µm), significantly exceeding Slow_8 (p<.001) and Fast_18. Fast_18 showed intermediate effects, while Slow_8 demonstrated the smallest changes (ΔRa=0.194 µm; ΔRz=1.457 µm). Conclusions: Adhesive removal protocols significantly influence enamel surface integrity. Low-speed systems or high-speed burs with a higher blade count appear to minimize enamel damage during attachment removal.

Keywords

• Orthodontics
• Attachments
• Clear Aligners
• Debonding
• Surface Roughness.

References

1. REFERENCES
2. Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J. Dent. (Tehran). 2013;10(1):82-93. Epub 20130131.
3. Almudhi A, Aldeeri A, Aloraini AAA, Alomar AIM, Alqudairi MSM, Alzahrani OAA, et al. Comparison of Enamel Surface Integrity after De-Bracketing as Affected by Seven Different Orthodontic Residual Cement Removal Systems. Diagn. 2023;13(20):3284. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13203284
4. Alshammari RR, Alshihah N, Aldweesh A. Quantitative evaluation of surface roughness and mass loss for different types of composite resins used for clear aligner attachments: an in vitro study. Front. Mater. 2025;Volume 12 - 2025. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2025.1614811
5. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent. Mater. 1997;13(4):258-69. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3
6. Boncuk Y, Cehreli ZC, Polat-Özsoy Ö. Effects of different orthodontic adhesives and resin removal techniques on enamel color alteration. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(4):634-41. Epub 20131206. doi: 10.2319/060613-433.1
7. Cesur E, Arslan C, Orhan AI, Bilecenoğlu B, Orhan K. Effect of different resin removal methods on enamel after metal and ceramic bracket debonding : An in vitro micro-computed tomography study. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2022;83(3):157-71. Epub 20210624. doi: 10.1007/s00056-021-00306-1
8. Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur. J. Orthod. 2004;26(3):333-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.3.333

9. Erdur EA, Akın M, Cime L, İleri Z. Evaluation of Enamel Surface Roughness after Various Finishing Techniques for Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets. Turk. J. Orthod. 2016;29(1):1-5. Epub 20160301. doi: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.15-00016R1
10. Fan XC, Chen L, Huang XF. Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):58. Epub 20170227. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0349-6
11. Field J, Waterhouse P, German M. Quantifying and qualifying surface changes on dental hard tissues in vitro. J. Dent. 2010;38(3):182-90. Epub 20100115. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.01.002
12. Filiz H, Ertürk Avunduk AT, Cengiz Yanardağ E. Diş hekimliğinde yüzey pürüzlülüğü araştırma yöntemleri: derleme makalesi. Uşak Üni. Diş Hek. Fak. Dergisi. 2023;2(2):28-35.
13. Garg R, Dixit P, Khosla T, Gupta P, Kalra H, Kumar P. Enamel Surface Roughness after Debonding: A Comparative Study using Three Different Burs. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2018;19(5):521-6. Epub 20180501.
14. Ghaleb L, Al-Worafi NA, Thawaba A, Abdulqader AA, Alkamel A, Abdo Y, et al. Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):358. Epub 20240320. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04138-4
15. Guan Y, Xu J, Qiu J, Cai H, Xia W, Ye Z, et al. Multiparametric performance comparison of dental composites for clear aligner attachments. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):1206. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06623-w
16. Heurich E, Beyer M, Jandt KD, Reichert J, Herold V, Schnabelrauch M, et al. Quantification of dental erosion—A comparison of stylus profilometry and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Dental Materials. 2010;26(4):326-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.001
17. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel - current knowledge and future perspectives - a systematic review. Med. Sci. Monit. 2014;20:1991-2001. Epub 20141020. doi: 10.12659/msm.890912
18. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tandecka K, Szatkiewicz T, Stępień P, Sporniak-Tutak K, Grocholewicz K. Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up -comparison of three different tools. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(1):146. Epub 20151118. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0131-6
19. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Stepien P, Szatkiewicz T, Sporniak-Tutak K, et al. Effect of orthodontic debonding and residual adhesive removal on 3D enamel microroughness. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2558. Epub 20161011. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2558
20. Jedliński M, Mazur M, Greco M, Belfus J, Grocholewicz K, Janiszewska-Olszowska J. Attachments for the Orthodontic Aligner Treatment-State of the Art-A Comprehensive Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023;20(5). Epub 20230302. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054481
21. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(6):1081-8. doi: 10.2319/012610-55.1
22. Ke Y, Zhu Y, Zhu M. A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):24. Epub 20190123. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0695-z
23. Mohebi S, Shafiee HA, Ameli N. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding with atomic force microscopy. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(3):521-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.025
24. Moradi M, Hormozi E, Shamohammadi M, Rakhshan V. Effects of debonding of orthodontic brackets on topography and surface roughness of composite restorations. Int. Orthod. 2018;16(4):623-37. Epub 20181017. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2018.09.017
25. Nguyen AV, Nguyen TT. Evaluation of enamel integrity after clear aligner attachments removal: a risk-benefit comparison of one-step tools. PeerJ. 2025;13:e20200. Epub 20251015. doi: 10.7717/peerj.20200
26. Nucera R, Dolci C, Bellocchio AM, Costa S, Barbera S, Rustico L, et al. Effects of Composite Attachments on Orthodontic Clear Aligners Therapy: A Systematic Review. Mater. (Basel). 2022;15(2). Epub 20220111. doi: 10.3390/ma15020533
27. Ocak I, Gorucu-Coskuner H, Aksu M. Wear resistance of orthodontic attachments: a comparative analysis of different composite resins in clear aligner therapy. Clin. Oral. Inv. 2025;29(5):242. Epub 20250411. doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06316-2
28. Pandian SM, Subramanian AK, Vaiid N. Comparison of efficacy and accuracy of tooth movements in optimized and conventional attachments of clear aligners - A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Oral. Biol. Craniofac. Res. 2025;15(5):1123-33. Epub 20250729. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.07.019
29. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur. J. Orthod. 2012;34(1):25-32. Epub 20110112. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq128
30. Shah P, Sharma P, Goje SK, Kanzariya N, Parikh M. Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal-an in vitro study. Prog. Orthod. 2019;20(1):18. Epub 20190506. doi: 10.1186/s40510-019-0269-x
31. Shah P, Sharma P, Goje SK, Kanzariya N, Parikh M. Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal—an in vitro study. Progress in Orthodontics. 2019;20(1). doi: 10.1186/s40510-019-0269-x
32. Soares Tenório KC, Neupmann Feres MF, Tanaka CJ, Augusto MKM, Rodrigues JA, Pereira da Silva HD, et al. In vitro evaluation of enamel surface roughness and morphology after orthodontic debonding: Traditional cleanup systems versus polymer bur. Int. Orthod. 2020;18(3):546-54. Epub 20200531. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2020.04.006
33. Thawaba AA, Albelasy NF, Elsherbini AM, Hafez AM. Evaluation of enamel roughness after orthodontic debonding and clean-up procedures using zirconia, tungsten carbide, and white stone burs: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1). doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03194-6
34. Turkoglu H, Atik E. 3-Dimensional topographic enamel surface changes after different debonding techniques for aligner attachments: a micro-CT study. Clin. Oral. Inv. 2025;29(1):89. Epub 20250125. doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06188-6
35. Ulusoy C. Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding. J. Appl. Oral. Sci. 2009;17(3):209-15. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000300015
36. Vandeloise J, Albert A, Herman R, Eldafrawy M, Sanchez C, Seidel L, et al. Influence of Operator, Tool, Dental Loupes, and Tooth Position on Enamel Loss and Composite Remnants After Removal of Composite Attachments for Orthodontic Clear Aligners: An Experimental Study Using 3D Profilometry. J. Adh. Dent. 2024;26:275-82. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b5876265
37. Vieira AC, Pinto RA, Chevitarese O, Almeida MA. Polishing after debracketing: its influence upon enamel surface. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 1993;18(1):7-11.
38. Yangın A, Camcı H, Soybelli M. Clear Aligner Attachments: A Comprehensive Review. Turk. J. Orthod. 2025;38(3):177-89. doi: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2025.2025.7
39. Yousry TN, Abolgheit S, Kassem HE. Enamel surface roughness following debonding resin clean up using high speed air-turbine and electric handpieces. In vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):609. Epub 20240525. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04339-x