Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods
Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhe...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Arbutina Adriana [verfasserIn] Arapović-Savić Marijana [verfasserIn] Umićević-Davidović Mirjana [verfasserIn] Kuzmanović-Radman Irena [verfasserIn] Nedeljković Nenad [verfasserIn] Glišić Branislav [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch ; srp |
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo - Serbian Medical Society, 2010, 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:148 ; year:2020 ; number:7-8 ; pages:404-409 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.2298/SARH190305008A |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ05011011X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ05011011X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230308151051.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230227s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.2298/SARH190305008A |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ05011011X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng |a srp | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Arbutina Adriana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a adhesive removal | |
| 650 | 4 | |a enamel damage | |
| 650 | 4 | |a enamel surface index | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Medicine | |
| 653 | 0 | |a R | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Arapović-Savić Marijana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Umićević-Davidović Mirjana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Kuzmanović-Radman Irena |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Nedeljković Nenad |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Glišić Branislav |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo |d Serbian Medical Society, 2010 |g 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 |w (DE-627)637421205 |w (DE-600)2577665-4 |x 24060895 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:148 |g year:2020 |g number:7-8 |g pages:404-409 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 148 |j 2020 |e 7-8 |h 404-409 | ||
| author_variant |
a a aa a s m asm u d m udm k r i kri n n nn g b gb |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:24060895:2020----::vlainfnmlufcatrrcedbnignahsvrmv |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2020 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| allfields |
10.2298/SARH190305008A doi (DE-627)DOAJ05011011X (DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng srp Arbutina Adriana verfasserin aut Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. adhesive removal enamel damage enamel surface index Medicine R Arapović-Savić Marijana verfasserin aut Umićević-Davidović Mirjana verfasserin aut Kuzmanović-Radman Irena verfasserin aut Nedeljković Nenad verfasserin aut Glišić Branislav verfasserin aut In Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo Serbian Medical Society, 2010 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 (DE-627)637421205 (DE-600)2577665-4 24060895 nnns volume:148 year:2020 number:7-8 pages:404-409 https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 kostenfrei http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 148 2020 7-8 404-409 |
| spelling |
10.2298/SARH190305008A doi (DE-627)DOAJ05011011X (DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng srp Arbutina Adriana verfasserin aut Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. adhesive removal enamel damage enamel surface index Medicine R Arapović-Savić Marijana verfasserin aut Umićević-Davidović Mirjana verfasserin aut Kuzmanović-Radman Irena verfasserin aut Nedeljković Nenad verfasserin aut Glišić Branislav verfasserin aut In Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo Serbian Medical Society, 2010 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 (DE-627)637421205 (DE-600)2577665-4 24060895 nnns volume:148 year:2020 number:7-8 pages:404-409 https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 kostenfrei http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 148 2020 7-8 404-409 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.2298/SARH190305008A doi (DE-627)DOAJ05011011X (DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng srp Arbutina Adriana verfasserin aut Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. adhesive removal enamel damage enamel surface index Medicine R Arapović-Savić Marijana verfasserin aut Umićević-Davidović Mirjana verfasserin aut Kuzmanović-Radman Irena verfasserin aut Nedeljković Nenad verfasserin aut Glišić Branislav verfasserin aut In Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo Serbian Medical Society, 2010 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 (DE-627)637421205 (DE-600)2577665-4 24060895 nnns volume:148 year:2020 number:7-8 pages:404-409 https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 kostenfrei http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 148 2020 7-8 404-409 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.2298/SARH190305008A doi (DE-627)DOAJ05011011X (DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng srp Arbutina Adriana verfasserin aut Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. adhesive removal enamel damage enamel surface index Medicine R Arapović-Savić Marijana verfasserin aut Umićević-Davidović Mirjana verfasserin aut Kuzmanović-Radman Irena verfasserin aut Nedeljković Nenad verfasserin aut Glišić Branislav verfasserin aut In Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo Serbian Medical Society, 2010 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 (DE-627)637421205 (DE-600)2577665-4 24060895 nnns volume:148 year:2020 number:7-8 pages:404-409 https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 kostenfrei http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 148 2020 7-8 404-409 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.2298/SARH190305008A doi (DE-627)DOAJ05011011X (DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng srp Arbutina Adriana verfasserin aut Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. adhesive removal enamel damage enamel surface index Medicine R Arapović-Savić Marijana verfasserin aut Umićević-Davidović Mirjana verfasserin aut Kuzmanović-Radman Irena verfasserin aut Nedeljković Nenad verfasserin aut Glišić Branislav verfasserin aut In Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo Serbian Medical Society, 2010 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 (DE-627)637421205 (DE-600)2577665-4 24060895 nnns volume:148 year:2020 number:7-8 pages:404-409 https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 kostenfrei http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 148 2020 7-8 404-409 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 volume:148 year:2020 number:7-8 pages:404-409 |
| sourceStr |
In Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo 148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409 volume:148 year:2020 number:7-8 pages:404-409 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
adhesive removal enamel damage enamel surface index Medicine R |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Arbutina Adriana @@aut@@ Arapović-Savić Marijana @@aut@@ Umićević-Davidović Mirjana @@aut@@ Kuzmanović-Radman Irena @@aut@@ Nedeljković Nenad @@aut@@ Glišić Branislav @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
637421205 |
| id |
DOAJ05011011X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ05011011X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308151051.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.2298/SARH190305008A</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ05011011X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">srp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arbutina Adriana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">adhesive removal</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">enamel damage</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">enamel surface index</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arapović-Savić Marijana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Umićević-Davidović Mirjana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kuzmanović-Radman Irena</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nedeljković Nenad</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Glišić Branislav</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo</subfield><subfield code="d">Serbian Medical Society, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)637421205</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2577665-4</subfield><subfield code="x">24060895</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:148</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:7-8</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:404-409</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">148</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">7-8</subfield><subfield code="h">404-409</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Arbutina Adriana |
| spellingShingle |
Arbutina Adriana misc adhesive removal misc enamel damage misc enamel surface index misc Medicine misc R Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods |
| authorStr |
Arbutina Adriana |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)637421205 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
24060895 |
| topic_title |
Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods adhesive removal enamel damage enamel surface index |
| topic |
misc adhesive removal misc enamel damage misc enamel surface index misc Medicine misc R |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc adhesive removal misc enamel damage misc enamel surface index misc Medicine misc R |
| topic_browse |
misc adhesive removal misc enamel damage misc enamel surface index misc Medicine misc R |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
637421205 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)637421205 (DE-600)2577665-4 |
| title |
Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ05011011X (DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 |
| title_full |
Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods |
| author_sort |
Arbutina Adriana |
| journal |
Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo |
| journalStr |
Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo |
| lang_code |
eng srp |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
404 |
| author_browse |
Arbutina Adriana Arapović-Savić Marijana Umićević-Davidović Mirjana Kuzmanović-Radman Irena Nedeljković Nenad Glišić Branislav |
| container_volume |
148 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Arbutina Adriana |
| doi_str_mv |
10.2298/SARH190305008A |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods |
| title_auth |
Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods |
| abstract |
Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. |
| abstractGer |
Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
7-8 |
| title_short |
Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3 http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Arapović-Savić Marijana Umićević-Davidović Mirjana Kuzmanović-Radman Irena Nedeljković Nenad Glišić Branislav |
| author2Str |
Arapović-Savić Marijana Umićević-Davidović Mirjana Kuzmanović-Radman Irena Nedeljković Nenad Glišić Branislav |
| ppnlink |
637421205 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.2298/SARH190305008A |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T02:03:43.271Z |
| _version_ |
1803612190956060672 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ05011011X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308151051.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.2298/SARH190305008A</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ05011011X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">srp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arbutina Adriana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methods</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction/Objective. After an orthodontic brackets debonding procedure it is necessary to remove any residual adhesive from the tooth surface, as this is a common cause of enamel damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface after the application of six different methods of adhesive removal following brackets debonding, as well as to compare the duration of these procedures. Methods. For the purpose of this study, 245 human premolars were extracted as part of the orthodontic treatment. Metal brackets were bonded to 210 human premolars with the Aspire adhesive system. After the debonding of brackets, the samples were divided into six groups according to the adhesive removal method applied: tapered fissure tungsten carbide bur, round tungsten carbide bur, composite bur, abrasive disc, adhesive removing pliers, and ultrasonic scaler. Out of 245 premolars, 35 served as a control group. The duration of adhesive removal was recorded. Enamel damages were estimated according to the enamel surface index on the scanning electron microscopy images. Results. Maximum preservation of the enamel surface was accomplished by using a composite bur (1.08). The application of abrasive disc was significantly less time-consuming in comparison to the application of a composite bur (p < 0.01) and an ultrasonic scaler (p < 0.01). Conclusion. The most harmful for the enamel surface was the use of an ultrasonic scaler as well as a round tungsten carbide bur. Adhesive removal done by an abrasive disc thus proved one of the least damaging and the least time-consuming methods.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">adhesive removal</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">enamel damage</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">enamel surface index</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arapović-Savić Marijana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Umićević-Davidović Mirjana</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kuzmanović-Radman Irena</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nedeljković Nenad</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Glišić Branislav</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo</subfield><subfield code="d">Serbian Medical Society, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">148(2020), 7-8, Seite 404-409</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)637421205</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2577665-4</subfield><subfield code="x">24060895</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:148</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:7-8</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:404-409</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2298/SARH190305008A</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/04bdcd7842ef47a6922e1c9019c479e3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2020/0370-81792000008A.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0370-8179</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">148</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">7-8</subfield><subfield code="h">404-409</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4014254 |