{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["13"],"submitter":["Nguyen AV"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Background</h4>At the end of clear aligner treatment, attachment removal is essential to restore natural tooth morphology while preserving enamel integrity. This study aimed to compare the effects of seven different composite removal instruments on the enamel surface using a risk-benefit model.<h4>Materials</h4>The instruments assessed were: OneGloss, Enhance, SM 104, Sof-Lex disc (coarse grit), tungsten carbide bur, zirconia bur, and white stone bur. Seventy extracted premolar teeth were bonded with standardized condensable composite attachments (2 × 4 × 1 mm). Enamel integrity was quantitatively assessed by measuring surface roughness (µm) and enamel loss depth (mm), and qualitatively analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The time required for attachment removal was reco"],"journal":["PeerJ"],"pagination":["e20200"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12535233"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Evaluation of enamel integrity after clear aligner attachments removal: a risk-benefit comparison of one-step tools."],"pmcid":["PMC12535233"],"pubmed_authors":["Nguyen TT","Nguyen AV"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Evaluation of enamel integrity after clear aligner attachments removal: a risk-benefit comparison of one-step tools.","description":"<h4>Background</h4>At the end of clear aligner treatment, attachment removal is essential to restore natural tooth morphology while preserving enamel integrity. This study aimed to compare the effects of seven different composite removal instruments on the enamel surface using a risk-benefit model.<h4>Materials</h4>The instruments assessed were: OneGloss, Enhance, SM 104, Sof-Lex disc (coarse grit), tungsten carbide bur, zirconia bur, and white stone bur. Seventy extracted premolar teeth were bonded with standardized condensable composite attachments (2 × 4 × 1 mm). Enamel integrity was quantitatively assessed by measuring surface roughness (µm) and enamel loss depth (mm), and qualitatively analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The time required for attachment removal was reco","dates":{"release":"2025-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2025","modification":"2026-05-10T03:22:54.888Z","creation":"2026-05-10T03:11:29.607Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC12535233","cross_references":{"pubmed":["41112751"],"doi":["10.7717/peerj.20200"]}}