Abstract
BackgroundThe aim of the present investigation was to evaluate enamel reduction efficiency, abrasive property decay, and enamel effects between oscillating mechanical and manual systems for interproximal enamel reduction (IPR).MethodsThree oscillating strips and three manual strips were tested on twelve freshly extracted premolars blocked in an acrylic cylinder pot by means of a material testing machine. Each strip underwent one test of 8 cycles (30 s each). Both abrasive tracks and teeth surfaces were qualitative evaluated before and after IPR by means of SEM analysis. Efficiency and abrasive property decay of both IPR systems were investigated by the amount of enamel reduction within the eight-cycle testing. Independent t-test was used to evaluate differences in variables between the two systems.ResultsMechanical IPR system showed higher efficiency in terms of enamel reduction (p < 0.005) when compared with manual IPR system (0.16 mm and 0.09 mm, respectively). Quantity of removed enamel decreased throughout the 8 cycles for both systems. Less presence of enamel debris and detachment of abrasive grains were observed on mechanical strips rather than manual strips. SEM analysis revealed more regular surface of teeth undergone mechanical IPR procedures.ConclusionOscillating diamond strips showed more controlled efficiency when compared with the manual IPR system leading to a more regular enamel surface.
Highlights
The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate enamel reduction efficiency, abrasive property decay, and enamel effects between oscillating mechanical and manual systems for interproximal enamel reduction (IPR)
Normalization for the two IPR systems was performed according to their respective maximum value of removed enamel: first cycle with mechanical IPR system (0.23 mm of removed enamel) and first cycle with manual IPR system (0.15 mm of removed enamel)
As for enamel reduction efficiency, mechanical oscillating IPR system reduced the inaccuracy of manual IPR systems satisfying precision potentially down to 0.1 mm required by Three dimensional (3D) treatment plans such as clear aligners
Summary
The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate enamel reduction efficiency, abrasive property decay, and enamel effects between oscillating mechanical and manual systems for interproximal enamel reduction (IPR). Interproximal reduction (IPR) is a common procedure used in orthodontic treatment [1] in several clinical cases. Main clinical indications include correction of Bolton tooth-size discrepancies, mild or moderate crowding, morphologic dental anomalies, prevention of relapse, and reduction of interdental gingival papilla retraction [1,2,3,4,5]. It is frequently used as part of treatment in combination with clear aligners [6].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
