Document Type : Original Article


JCD Dental College, Sirsa, Haryana



Background: The objective of present study was to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the surface irregularities produced by three different methods of IPR followed by polishing and sealant application, using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and Profilometer.
Methods: The study sample comprised of 100 extracted permanent maxillary 1st premolar teeth divided into 10 groups with 1 control group and 9 experimental groups according to the stripping method employed (hand-pulled abrasive strips, air rotor stripping and IPR file system) and subsequent finishing procedures (sealant application and polishing strips). The statistically significant intergroup comparison for the difference of mean scores between independent groups and difference among groups was determined by t test, one-way analyses of variance (Anova) and Tukey HSD Post Hoc test at level of significance set at 5%. or p < 0.05.
Results: Surface roughness value (Ra) obtained using Profilometer and SEM images at 500x and 1500x magnification of IPR using diamond burs followed by sealant application (Group 7) had reasonably smooth surface. IPR File System when used with non-possibility of carrying out any adjunct finishing procedures (Group 4), disturbed the enamel surface to the least.
Conclusion: Finishing procedures used post IPR gave smoother enamel surfaces making it necessary for reduction of number and depth of grooves created by IPR. Best combination which produced minimal enamel surface roughness post IPR in present study was diamond burs followed by sealant application.


Main Subjects

  1. Grippaudoa C, Cancellieri D, Grecolini ME, Deli R. Comparison between different interdental stripping methods and evaluation of abrasive strips: SEM analysis. Prog Orthod 2010;11(2):127-37. doi: 10.1016/j.pio.2010.08.001.
  2. Barcoma E, Shroff B, Best AM, Shoff MC, Lindauer SJ. Interproximal reduction of teeth: differences in perspective between orthodontists and dentists. Angle Orthod 2015;85:820-5. doi: 10.2319/072314- 515.1.
  3. Melson B. Adult Orthodontics. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.p.354-69.
  4. Frindel CJ. Clear thinking about interproximal stripping. J Dentofacial Anom Orthod 2010;13:187- 99. doi:10.1051/ODFEN/2010208.
  5. Chudasama D, Sheridan JJ. Guidelines for contemporary air rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 2007;41:315-20. PMID: 17652864.
  6. Radlanski RJ, Ralf R, Jager A, Zimmer B. Plaque accumulations caused by interdental stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:416-20. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90131-x.
  7. Chirla A, Kumar N, Jayakumar P. A scanning electron microscopic comparison of re‑proximated enamel surfaces after various stripping and polishing methods‑an in vitro study. J Indian Orthod Soc 2010;44:12‑24. doi:10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_12_17
  8. Sheridan JJ. Air-rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 1985;19:43-59. PMID: 3882756.
  9. Sheridan JJ, Ledoux PM. Air Rotor stripping and proximal sealants: An SEM Evaluation. J Clin Orthod 1989; 23(12):790-4. PMID: 2639888.
  10. Livas C, Jongsma AC, Ren Y. 2013. Enamel reduction techniques in orthodontics: A literature review. Open Dent J 7:146-151. doi: 10.2174/1874210601307010146.
  11. Bhambri E, Kalra JP, Ahuja S, Bhambri G. Evaluation of enamel surfaces following interproximal reduction and polishing with different methods: A scanning electron microscope study. Indian J Dent Sci 2017;9:153-9. doi: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_12_17.
  12. Mikulewicz M, Szymkowski J, Matthews‑Brzozowska T. SEM and profilometric evaluation of enamel surface after air rotor stripping‑an in vitro study. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2007;9:11‑7. PMID: 17933100.
  13. Shah L, Desai H, Arora P, Patel N, Harsora V. Manual vs air rotor stripping“ Just Do It with Care”- SEM evaluation. International Journal of Engineering Research and Reviews. 2014;2:119-126. doi: 10.9734/BJMMR/2017/30295
  14. Lapenaite E, Lopatiene K. Interproximal enamel reduction as a part of orthodontic treatment. Stomatologija 2014;16:19-24. PMID: 24824056.
  15. Gupta P, Gupta N, Patel N, Gupta R, Sandhu GS, Naik C Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of enamel after various poststripping polishing methods: an in vitro study. Aust Orthod J 2012 28(2): 240–244. PMID: 23304974.
  16. Harish S, Karunakara B C, and Reddy S. Comparison of Interproximal Reduction Techniques and Proximal Strips: An Atomic Force Microscopic and Confocal Microscopic Study. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society 2020:54(1): 44–48. doi: 10.1177/0301574219885712.
  17. Sharma NS, Shrivastav SS and Hazarey PV. Mastering Interproximal Stripping: With Innovations in Slenderization. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(2):163-166. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals10005-1159.
  18. Rastogi S (2018), Interproximal Reduction in Orthodontics: A literature review. Int J Dent & Oral Heal. 4:9, 164-172.
  19. Choudhary A., Gautman AK, Chousky A, Bhusan M. Interproximal enamel reduction in orthodontic treatment: A review. JOADMS 2015;1(3):123-127.
  20. El‑Mangoury NH, Moussa MM, Mostafa YA, Girgis AS. In‑vivo remineralization after air‑rotor stripping. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:75‑8. PMID: 1939614.
  21. Agrawal et al. SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) Evaluation of Surface Roughness after Proximal Stripping of Teeth Followed by Application of Fluoride Varnish and Bonding Agent. British Journal of Medicine & Medical Research 2017;19(12): 1-7.
  22. Vorburger TV, Rhee H-G, Renegar TB, Song J-F, Zheng A (2007) Comparison of optical and stylus methods for measurement of surface texture. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33:110–118. doi: 10.1007/s00170- 007-0953-8.