Aims: (1) To investigate the surface condition of the adhesive margins around brackets and (2) evaluate which rotating polishing system yields the most favourable results.
Materials and Method: Sound extracted human teeth were set-up in 9 identical lower models with moderate crowding and mounted in a phantom-head to simulate almost clinical conditions. Subsequently, brackets (Mini-Mono, Forestadent) were bonded with Transbond XT (3M Unitek). Before light-curing any surplus adhesive was thoroughly removed with a scaler. The untreated teeth of one model served as control. The composite around the brackets on the other 8 models was removed/polished with 1 of 8 rotating polishing systems at 10,000 rpm (4 single-step [EVE, One Gloss+, OptraPol, PoGo] and 4 two-step systems [Diagloss; Enhance; Kenda GPS at 4,800 rpm; Kenda Nobilis, Unicus]). Afterwards the enamel, bracket and adhesive surfaces surrounding each bracket were separately graded on scales between 1 and 6. Subsequently the average values for each polishing system were calculated.
Results: On the control teeth – despite thorough attempts to remove all surplus – considerable amounts of adhesive remnants were left, causing very rough surfaces. On average, Diagloss (NTI-Kahla) removed most surplus and produced the smoothest surfaces.
Conclusions: (1) Given the amount and condition of the adhesive surplus surrounding brackets, polishing of this area following bracket placement must be demanded to minimize plaque retention. (2) It remains to be seen whether Diagloss – also in vivo – proofs to be the best compromise between the time required for polishing and the resulting surface quality.