Evaluation of different types of polishing of composite resin surfaces after the removal of metal and ceramic brackets

Authors

  • Mariana de Oliveira Viana São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
  • Adriana Aparecida Faziolli Almeida Dias São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
  • Silvia Amélia Scudeler Vedovello São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
  • Flávia Martão Flório São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
  • Rogério Heladio Lopes Motta São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
  • Jose Augusto Rodrigues Guarulhos University - UnG.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2015.v18i1.1085

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectivenessof different methods ofcomposite resin polishingafter the removaloforthodontic brackets. Material and Methods: 160resindiscsmade froma matrix ofacrylic resinwere divided into4 groups,according to thetype of composite resinused: G1 - microfilled(n = 40), G2 -microhybrid(n = 40), G3 -nanohybrid(n = 40)and G4-nanofilled(n = 40). One half of the samples wassubjectedto thermocycling, at 2000 cycles from 5 ? 2 ºC to 55 ? 2 ºC, for 1 min each. Halfof each group of resins was bonded with Gemini™ metallic brackets (3MUnitek) andthe otherhalf with Transcend™ ceramic brackets (3MUnitek). Thebrackets were transferred to auniversal testing machine (EMIC DLmodel2000).Half of the specimensfrom eachsubgroupwere polishedwith diamond burs andthe other halfwithSof-Lex discs. The averagesurface roughness of composite resin discswas measured,using aprofilometer,before the bondingof brackets, after the removal of brackets, after removing theexcess resinandafter polishing. Results: After removal of bracketsandafter polishing, the surface roughnesswas greater in the microhybridgroup(ANOVA, p < 0.05).After removalof ceramicbrackets, the groups showedhigher surfaceroughness (ANOVA, p < 0.05). There was no significantdifference inroughnessrelated tothermocyclingand the type ofpolishing.Conclusion:The qualityof thepolishis subjectedto the type ofresinused. Ceramicbrackets provided rougher surfacesafter removal. Both types ofpolishingusedare effective.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Mariana de Oliveira Viana, São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
    DDS, MS, Department of Orthodontics,
  • Adriana Aparecida Faziolli Almeida Dias, São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
    DDS, Department of Orthodontics,
  • Silvia Amélia Scudeler Vedovello, São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
    DDS, MS, ScD, Department of Orthodontics
  • Flávia Martão Flório, São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

    DDS, MS, ScD, Department of Public Health,

  • Rogério Heladio Lopes Motta, São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Center, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
    DDS, MS, ScD, Department of Pharmacology,
  • Jose Augusto Rodrigues, Guarulhos University - UnG.
    DDS, MS, ScD, Department of Dentistry.

Downloads

Published

2015-03-26

Issue

Section

Clinical or Laboratorial Research

How to Cite

1.
Viana M de O, Dias AAFA, Vedovello SAS, Flório FM, Motta RHL, Rodrigues JA. Evaluation of different types of polishing of composite resin surfaces after the removal of metal and ceramic brackets. BDS [Internet]. 2015 Mar. 26 [cited 2026 Aug. 22];18(1):102-10. Available from: https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1085

Most read articles by the same author(s)