Comparison of the Effects of Different Interproximal Reduction (IPR) Applications on Enamel Surface Roughness
Project no. 22163 · Status: Kapanmış (Yayın bekleniyor) · 2020
Summary
<p><strong>Aim:</strong> Interproximal reduction (IPR) is a method that is frequently used in orthodontics to resolve mild/moderate crowding and to correct the tooth size discrepancies.</p><p>Since the IPR process is performed by mechanically removing the enamel surface, if proper polishing procedures are not followed, it roughens the enamel surface and provides a surface suitable for plaque accumulation. Knowing which IPR system leaves the enamel surface smoother is an important criterion that the physician should consider when choosing which IPR system to use.</p><p>In this study, our aim was to compare the surface roughness caused by different IPR and polishing procedures that were applied to extracted premolar teeth by using <em>Sa, Sq, Sp, Sv </em>and<em> Sz</em> parameters in an optical profilometer device.</p><p><strong>Method:</strong> In our study, 73 extracted premolar teeth were used. The IPR procedure was applied to the mesial and distal approximal surfaces of these teeth. Specimens fixed in acrylic blocks were divided into five equal groups and various IPR applications were made to each group in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.</p><p>These five groups are:</p><p>o Group 1: IPR with oscillating diamond strips and polishing with its own polishing system</p><p>o Group 2: IPR with oscillating diamond strips and polishing with polishing discs</p><p>o Group 3: IPR with fine diamond burs and polishing with polishing discs</p><p>o Group 4: IPR with diamond coated discs and polishing with polishing discs</p><p>o Group 5: IPR with manual hand strips and polishing with polishing discs.</p><p>The mesial and distal surfaces were cut 3x3 mm in order to ensure that the surface on which IPR was performed and on which the roughness was measured was the same. The prepared samples were scanned with an optical profilometer device before IPR (T0), after IPR (T1) and after the polishing procedures (T2) and the groups were compared with each other using the data obtained. The prepared samples were scanned with an optical profilometer device before (T0), after the IPR process (T1) and after the polishing procedures (T2) and the groups were compared with each other using the data obtained. The assumption of normality in quantitative variables was checked separately for the groups and time points to be compared with the Shapiro-Wilk test.</p><p>The mean variation of T0, T1 and T2 values of Sa and Sq, in which the assumption of normal distribution was met, was analyzed using a linear mixed model (LMM). When the interaction was found to be significant, each group was analyzed by LMM, and the binary time comparisons of those found significant were given with Bonferroni correction. Comparisons between groups were performed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by calculating the temporal differences at baseline. Post-hoc group comparisons were made with Tukey.</p><p>The analyzes of Sv, Sp and Sz values for which the normal distribution assumption was not met were performed with the non-parametric equivalent of the same analysis, the Brunner-Langer model (F1-LD-F1). The Kruskal Wallis test was used for post-interaction comparisons between groups. Post-hoc group comparisons after Kruskal Wallis test were made with Dunn test.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Significant differences were found in the T0-T1 and T1-T2 time intervals in each group in terms of <em>Sa</em> and <em>Sq</em> parameters in pairwise time comparisons within the groups. In terms of <em>Sv, Sp</em> and <em>Sz</em> parameters (p<0.05), a significant difference was found in the T0-T1, T1-T2 and T0-T2 time intervals within each group. (p<0.05) In pairwise comparisons of time-based differences between groups, the most significant difference in all parameters was between Groups 4 and 5.</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> After the IPR procedure, the enamel surface roughness noticeably increased. Although this roughness decreased after polishing, peaks and valleys remained on the surface that the polishing procedure could not diminish. After IPR, while the manual hand strip group created the roughest surfaces, the diamond coated disc group created the smoothest surfaces.</p><p>This study is supported by Ege University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit. Project Number: TDK-2020-22163</p><p><strong>Keywords: </strong>Enamel, Orthodontics, Orthodontic Appliances</p>