After orthodontic treatment, brackets are debonded and residual adhesive is removed, causing iatrogenic enamel damage. The aim of this study was to review the methods of orthodontic adhesive removal, find clear evidence, and provide a rationale for this procedure. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences, Scopus, Cochrane, Google, and Google Scholar using keywords: orthodontic adhesive removal, orthodontic debonding, orthodontic clean-up. Studies concerning human enamel roughness or loss from debonding and adhesive removal were considered. Forty-four full-text articles were analyzed and 3 were rejected after detailed reading; finally 41 papers were included. Fifteen qualitative studies, 13 studies based on indices of enamel surface, and 13 quantitative studies were found. No meta-analysis could be performed due to a lack of homogenous quantitative evidence. The most popular tools were tungsten carbide burs, which were faster and more effective than Sof-Lex discs, ultrasonic tools, hand instruments, rubbers, or composite burs. They remove a substantial layer of enamel and roughen its surface, but are less destructive than Arkansas stones, green stones, diamond burs, steel burs, and lasers. Multi-step Sof-Lex discs and pumice slurry are the most predictable enamel polishing tools. Arkansas stones, green stones, diamond burs, steel burs, and lasers should not be used for adhesive removal. The use of tungsten carbide bur requires multistep polishing. Further efforts should be made to find tools and methods for complete removal of adhesive remnants, minimizing enamel loss and achieving a smooth surface.

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.

Friction control is a vital technology for reaching sustainable development goals, and surface texturing is one of the most effective and efficient techniques for friction reduction. This study investigated the performance of a micro-dimpled texture under varying texture densities and experimental conditions. Reciprocating sliding tests were performed to evaluate the effects of the micro-dimpled texture on friction reduction under different normal loads and lubrication conditions. The results suggested that a micro-dimpled texture could reduce the coefficient of friction (CoF) under dry and lubricated conditions, and high dimple density results in a lower CoF. The dominant mechanism of the micro-dimpled texture’s effect on friction reduction was discussed, and surface observation and simulation suggested that a micro-dimpled texture could reduce the contact area at the friction interface, thereby reducing CoF.

Controlling friction and wear are essential for reducing energy loss and lengthening the life span of friction pairs in sliding contacts. Surface texturing is an effective and efficient way to reduce friction and wear, especially under lubricated conditions. Dimple texture on friction pair surfaces has been verified to enhance the lubrication condition and shift the lubrication regime by generating additional hydrodynamic pressure. However, the geometric features and distribution of the microstructures considerably influence the production of additional pressure. Choosing and designing dimple texture with suitable geometric features is necessary and important for texturing applications. In this study, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) are used to investigate the effect of the geometric features of dimple textures on pressure build-up. The influence of dimple shapes, dimple depths, minimum film thickness, dimple densities, and dimple surface angles are presented and discussed. Notably, the influence of the dimple surface angle is introduced and presented.