International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2017 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

In vitro Macro-qualitative Comparison of Three Enamel Stripping Procedures: What is the Best Shape We can get?

Mona N Gholmieh

Citation Information : N Gholmieh M. In vitro Macro-qualitative Comparison of Three Enamel Stripping Procedures: What is the Best Shape We can get?. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017; 10 (4):358-362.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1465

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Interdental stripping is a common clinical procedure in orthodontic therapy, by reshaping the proximal contacts. Handheld abrasive strips have been criticized as time-consuming process. Metallic strip system, diamond disk, or segment disks have become increasingly popular. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morphological aspects of remodeled dental surfaces so as to conclude which of the different techniques (disk, bur, or strip) used to reduce the mesiodistal diameter is the best to reproduce the initial contour of the proximal surface of the tooth.

Materials and methods

Seventy-nine pieces (“teeth”) were prepared from permanent healthy teeth (premolars and molars) extracted for orthodontic reasons. They were mounted on a stand resembling the position of the natural teeth in a mild crowded dentition. The “teeth” are divided into three groups as follows: group S (strip): 26 “teeth,” group D (disk): 25 “teeth,” group B (bur): 28 “teeth.” In order to study the changes, these prepared “teeth” are macro-photographed in groups of 5 before and after proximal grinding.

Results

The “teeth” contours have been identified using piecewise cubic Hermit polynomials. The change in the contour has been traduced in terms of the change of curvature in the “teeth” contours. We used the z-test in order to find the confidence interval for the proportion of the class “+” for each of the techniques B, S, and D. With confidence level of 95%, we obtained the following confidence intervals:

B = (0.6943; 0.9057); S = (0.9093; 1.0138); D = (0.6184; 0.8616)

These results can be interpreted, as the technique S is significantly much better than the other two techniques if we aim at conserving the shape of the teeth before and after treatment.

Conclusion

We conclude that the use of a strip for remodeling the proximal surface of a tooth is an optimal technique to preserve the proximal shape of the tooth although it requires more time.

Clinical significance

The use of abrasive strip preserves the best shape of the proximal side. Abrasive strip could be the last step of any proximal reshaping technique.

How to cite this article

Nassif N, Gholmieh MN, Sfeir E, Mourad A. In vitro Macro-qualitative Comparison of Three Enamel Stripping Procedures: What is the Best Shape We can get? Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(4):358-362


  1. Enamel reduction techniques in orthodontics: a literature review. Open Dent J 2013 Oct 31;7:146-151.
  2. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of enamel after various stripping methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006 Aug;130(2):131.e7-131.e14.
  3. Asymmetry in tooth size: a factor in the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1944;14:67-71.
  4. A study of the effects of mesio-distal reduc-tion of mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod 1956;42:615-624.
  5. An index for assessing tooth shape deviations as applied to the mandibular incisors. Am J Orthod 1972 Apr;61(4):384-401.
  6. Anterior interocclusal relations. Part I. Am J Orthod 1980 Oct;78(4):361-370.
  7. Fiberotomy and reproximation without lower retention, nine years in retrospect: part II. Angle Orthod 1980 Apr;50(2):88-97.
  8. Air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 1985 Jan;19(1):43-59.
  9. Air-rotor stripping update. J Clin Orthod 1987 Nov;21(11):781-788.
  10. Interdental papilla reconstruction in adult orthodontics. World J Orthod 2004 Spring;5(1):67-73.
  11. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2008 Nov;42(11):625-640.
  12. Enamel reduction procedures in orthodontic treatment. J Can Dent Assoc 2003 Jun;69(6):378-383.
  13. Guidelines for contemporary air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 2007 Jun;41(6):315-320.
  14. Effects of extraction and nonextraction therapy with air-rotor stripping on facial esthetics in postadolescent borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Apr;133(4):539-549.
  15. Enamel thickness of the posterior dentition: its implications for nonextraction treatment. Angle Orthod 1998 Apr;68(2):141-146.
  16. Air-rotor stripping and proximal sealants. An SEM evaluation. J Clin Orthod 1989 Dec;23(12):790-794.
  17. Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: how precisely can we strip teeth? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013 Apr;143(4 Suppl):S168-S172.
  18. Remodeling of teeth by grinding. Am J Orthod 1975 Nov;68(5):545-553.
  19. Susceptibility to caries and periodontal disease after posterior air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 1990 Feb;24(2):84-85.
  20. Plaque accumulations caused by interdental stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988 Nov;94(5):416-420.
  21. Orthodontic microabrasive reproximation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992 Oct;102(4):351-359.
  22. Air-rotor stripping and enamel demineralization in vitro. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994 Feb;105(2):142-152.
  23. Comparison between different interdental stripping methods and evaluation of abrasive strips: SEM analysis. Prog Orthod 2010;11(2):127-137.
  24. Pulp response to externally applied heat. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1965 Apr;19:515-530.
  25. Different methods of finishing and polishing enamel. J Prosthet Dent 2003 Feb;89(2):135-140.
  26. An in vitro study on the effect of an oscillating stripping method on enamel roughness. Prog Orthod 2015 Feb 10;16:1.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.