Manual Strips Research Articles

Evaluation of the enamel nano-topography influenced by different techniques of interproximal reduction: An atomic force microscopic study.

Interproximal enamel reduction is a part of the orthodontic treatment as a method of space generation in addition to other vast indications. Some studies found that different techniques might impose changes to the enamel surface that alter its topography, which in turn might influence its integrity and susceptibility to caries. Polishing, however, after this procedure is thought to be helpful to reduce these adverse effects. To evaluate the nano-topography of the enamel surfaces after interproximal reduction (IPR) and determine its influence on enamel surface roughness and examine the need for polishing to minimise these influences, when combined with topical fluoride application. A total of 60 proximal surfaces of 40 extracted maxillary premolars (10 premolars left unprepared as the control group) were reduced with different stripping instruments (discs, burs and manual strip system). The surface roughness of enamel was analysed with an atomic force microscope to determine the results quantitatively as well as qualitatively on the nanoscopic scale. One of each proximal surface was followed by polishing and fluoride varnish after the reduction. The results showed that surface roughness was increased in all groups without polishing. The greatest mean roughness was recorded for the disc group (212 ±125.7), followed by the bur group (172 ±93.1) and manual strips (153.8±106.7). The difference between the groups, however, was not significant for both mean roughness (P = 0.656) and height (P = 0.737). The parameters were decreased after polishing in all groups but the difference between methods was not significant for both parameters (P = 0.946 and P = 0.849); however, the mean height was reduced to nearly half the reading in the bur and manual strip method. The disc group only showed a statistically significant decrease in surface roughness with polishing (P < 0.05). All other results were not significant. All methods of interproximal reduction do not influence enamel surface nanotopography significantly with and without polishing. Polishing resulted in significant reduction of surface roughness only in the disc group.

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy.

To investigate the correspondence between programmed interproximal reduction (p-IPR) and implemented interproximal reduction (i-IPR) in an everyday-practice scenario. The secondary objective was to estimate factors that might influence i-IPR to make the process more efficient. Fifty patients treated with aligner therapy by six orthodontists were included in this prospective observational study. Impressions were taken at the beginning of treatment and after the first set of aligners. Data on p-IPR, i-IPR and technical aspects of IPR were gathered for 464 teeth. Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal-Wallis, and multilevel mixed regression. Mean difference between p-IPR and i-IPR was 0.15 mm (SD: 0.14 mm; P = .0001), with lower canines showing the highest discrepancy. Use of burs and measuring gauges resulted in a smaller difference (respectively: coeff.: 0.09, P = .029; coeff.: -0.06, P = .013). IPR was performed more accurately on the mesial surface of teeth than on the distal surface. Round tripping before IPR resulted in a slightly more precise i-IPR compared to the previous alignment (coeff.: -0.021, P = .041). Implemented IPR tends to be less than p-IPR, especially for lower canines and distal surfaces of teeth. Burs tend to provide more precise i-IPR, especially compared to manual strips; however, there is variation between the techniques. Using a measuring gauge tends to increase the precision of i-iPR. As several factors influence the implementation of IPR, particular attention must be paid during the procedure to maximize its precision.

Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: oscillating versus manual strips

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.