2025/09/22 by Dr.Litesh Singla, PRIYANKA PATHAK, Dr. Ashok Utreja +1
Dentistry · #3D evaluation of enamel surface #AFM #CLSM #Dentistry #Enamel surface roughness #FOS: Clinical medicine #Medicine and Health Sciences #SEM #contact profilometry #debonding in orthodontics #instruments for assessment of enamel roughness #optical profilometry #scoping review
paper · doi:10.17605/osf.io/8w3xk
Title: Different methods of assessment of enamel surface roughness post debonding. Background: Orthodontic bracket debonding and adhesive removal may irreversibly compromise enamel integrity. Increased surface roughness is clinically significant, as it promotes plaque retention, caries, discoloration, and esthetic concerns. Multiple techniques are used to measure enamel roughness, but the lack of standardization and heterogeneity in methodology complicate comparison and clinical application. Method: This scoping review was performed in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Database searches (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google Scholar) retrieved 666 records. Following duplicate removal and population, concept and context (PCC) based eligibility screening, 37 studies were included. MeSH terms applied were (“Orthodontic Debonding” OR “Bracket Removal”) AND (“Dental Enamel” OR “Enamel Surface”) AND (“Surface Properties” OR “Surface Roughness”) AND (“Profilometry” OR “Microscopy, Electron, Scanning” OR “Atomic Force Microscopy” OR “Confocal Microscopy”) Findings: Contact profilometry was most common, offering standardized roughness parameters (Ra, Rq, Rt) but limited to two-dimensional analysis. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) provided detailed surface images yet was destructive, preparation intensive, and largely qualitative. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) delivered nanometric three-dimensional resolution but was constrained by small scan areas, high cost, and technical complexity. Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) enabled non-destructive three-dimensional imaging with optical sectioning, though it required specialized equipment and trained operators. Optical profilometry proved most versatile, allowing rapid, wide-area, non-contact mapping with minimal preparation, but accessibility and cost remained barriers. Conclusion: Optical profilometry and CLSM represent the current benchmark for post-debonding enamel evaluation. Their adoption, alongside standardized protocols, will ensure reliable, reproducible, and clinically meaningful assessment of enamel surface roughness. Funding: None