The aim of the investigation was to compare overall and anterior Bolton ratios in different malocclusion groups with Bolton's standards. The material comprised 600 pre-treatment study casts (262 males and 338 females, aged 12–25 years), selected from the models of 3088 patients who had applied for orthodontic treatment based on the following criteria: permanent dentition from the first right molar to the first left molar and no interproximal caries or restorations. There were 162 Class I, 144 Class II division 1, 155 Class II division 2, and 139 Class III patients. Statistical analysis of the data was undertaken using a Student's t-test. Statistically significant differences were found for the mean overall ratio when compared with the original Bolton norm for the whole study group, as well as for patients with Class I and III malocclusions when the mean anterior ratio was compared with the original Bolton norm. Significant differences were observed in all malocclusion groups for both genders. Discrepancies exceeding 2 SD were found in 31.2 per cent of the studied population for the anterior ratio when compared with Bolton's norm. The highest mean values for anterior ratio were in males with Class I (79.1) and Class III (80.1) malocclusions.

The present study aimed at 3D analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss following the debonding of orthodontic molar tubes and orthodontic clean-up to assess the effectiveness and safety of One-Step Finisher and Polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover in comparison to tungsten carbide bur. Thirty human molars were bonded with chemical-cure orthodontic adhesive (Unite, 3M, USA), stored 24 h in 0.9 % saline solution, debonded and cleaned using three methods (Three groups of ten): tungsten carbide bur (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany), one-step finisher and polisher (One gloss, Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan) and Adhesive Residue Remover (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany). Direct 3D scanning in blue-light technology to the nearest 2 μm was performed before etching and after adhesive removal. Adhesive remnant height and volume as well as enamel loss depth and volume were calculated. An index of effectiveness and safety was proposed and calculated for every tool; adhesive remnant volume and duplicated enamel lost volume were divided by a sum of multiplicands. Comparisons using parametric ANOVA or nonparametric ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare between tools for adhesive remnant height and volume, enamel loss depth and volume as well as for the proposed index. No statistically significant differences in the volume (p = 0.35) or mean height (p = 0.24) of adhesive remnants were found (ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis test) between the groups of teeth cleaned using different tools. Mean volume of enamel loss was 2.159 mm3 for tungsten carbide bur, 1.366 mm3 for Shofu One Gloss and 0.659 mm3 for Adhesive Residue Remover - (F = 2.816, p = 0.0078). A comparison of the proposed new index between tools revealed highly statistically significant differences (p = 0.0081), supporting the best value for Adhesive Residue Remover and the worst – for tungsten carbide bur. The evaluated tools were all characterized by similar effectiveness. The most destructive tool with regards to enamel was the tungsten carbide bur, and the least was Adhesive Residue Removal.

Background: Termination of fixed orthodontic treatment is associated with bracket debonding and residual adhesive removal. These procedures increase enamel roughness to a degree that should depend on the tool used. Enamel roughening may be associated with bacterial retention and staining. However, a very limited data exists on the alteration of 3D enamel roughness resulting from the use of different tools for orthodontic clean-up.Aims: 1. To perform a precise assessment of 3D enamel surface roughness resulting from residual adhesive removal following orthodontic debonding molar tubes.2. To compare enamel surfaces resulting from the use of tungsten carbide bur, a one-step polisher and finisher and Adhesive Residue Remover.Material and Methods: Buccal surfaces of forty-five extracted human third molars were analysed using a confocal laser microscope at the magnification of 1080× and 3D roughness parameters were calculated. After 20 s etching, molar tubes were bonded, the teeth were stored in 0.9% saline solution for 24 hours and debonded. Residual adhesive was removed using in fifteen specimen each: a twelve-fluted tungsten carbide bur, a one-step finisher and polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover. Then, surface roughness analysis was repeated. Data normality was assessed using Shapiro–Wilk test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare between variables of normal distribution and for the latter—Kruskal-Wallis test.Results: Sa (arithmetical mean height) was significantly different between the groups (p= 0, 01326); the smoothest and most repeatable surfaces were achieved using Adhesive Residue Remover. Similarly, Sq (root mean square height of the scale-limited surface) had the lowest and most homogenous values for Adhesive Residue Remover (p= 0, 01108). Sz (maximum height of the scale-limited surface) was statistically different between the groups (p= 0, 0327), however no statistically significant differences were found concerning Ssk (skewness of the scale-limited surface).Discussion: Confocal laser microscopy allowed 3D surface analysis of enamel surface, avoiding the limitations of contact profilometry. Tungsten carbide burs are the most popular adhesive removing tools, however, the results of the present study indicate, that a one step polisher and finisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover are less detrimental to the enamel. This is in agreement with a recent study based on direct 3D scanning enamel surface. It proved, that a one-step finisher and polisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover are characterized by a similar effectiveness in removing residual remnants as tungsten carbide bur, but they remove significantly less enamel.Conclusion: Orthodontic debonding and removal of adhesive remnants increases enamel roughness. The smoothest surfaces were achieved using Adhesive Residue Remover, and the roughest using tungsten carbide bur.