Effect of Various Finishing Procedures on the Reflectivity (Shine) of Tooth Enamel – An In-vitro Study

• Main Authors: Harshal Ashok Patil, Shrikant Shrinivas Chitko, Veerendra Virupaxappa Kerudi, Amit Ratanlal Maheshwari, Neeraj Suresh Patil, Pawankumar Dnyandeo Tekale, Ketan Ashorao Gore, Amit Ashok Zope
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited 2016-08-01
• Series: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
• Subjects: custom made reflectometer; gloss; reflection
• Online Access: https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/8234/18921_CE(EK)_F(AK)_PF1(NEAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf

Introduction: Reflectivity of an object is a good parameter for surface finish. As the patient evaluates finishing as a function of gloss/reflectivity/shine an attempt is made here to evaluate changes in surface finish with custom made reflectometer. Aim: The aim of the present study was to study the effect of various procedures during orthodontic treatment on the shine of enamel, using a custom made reflectometer. Materials and Methods: Sixty one extracted premolars were collected and each tooth was mounted on acrylic block. Reflectivity of the teeth was measured as compared to standard before any procedure. One tooth was kept as standard throughout the study. Sixty teeth were acid etched. Reflectivity was measured on custom made reflectometer and readings recorded. Same procedure was repeated after debonding. Then 60 samples were divided into three groups: Group 1 - Tungsten Carbide, Group 2 - Astropol, Group 3- Sof-Lex disc depending upon the finishing method after debonding and reflectivity was measured. Results: The mean percentage of reflectivity after acid etching was 31.4%, debonding 45.5%, Tungsten carbide bur finishing (Group 1) was 58.3%, Astropol (Group 2) 72.8%, and SofLex disc (Group 3) 84.4% as that to the standard. There was statistically very highly significant (p<0.001) difference in reflectivity restored by the three finishing materials in the study. Thus, the light reflection was better in Group 3> Group 2> Group 1. Conclusion: The primary goal was to restore the enamel to its original state after orthodontic treatment. The methods tested in this study could not restore the original enamel reflectivity.