% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Zingler:807069,
      author       = {Zingler, Sebastian and Sommer, Andreas and Sen, Sinan and
                      Saure, Daniel and Langer, Jochen and Guillon, Olivier and
                      Lux, Christopher J.},
      title        = {{E}fficiency of powered systems for interproximal enamel
                      reduction ({IER}) and enamel roughness before and after
                      polishing—an in vitro study},
      journal      = {Clinical oral investigations},
      volume       = {20},
      number       = {5},
      issn         = {1436-3771},
      address      = {Berlin},
      publisher    = {Springer},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2016-02100},
      pages        = {933-942},
      year         = {2016},
      abstract     = {ObjectiveThis aims to evaluate the efficiency of three
                      different powered interproximal enamel reduction (IER)
                      systems and to assess enamel roughness before and after
                      polishing using different polishing times.Material and
                      methodsFour metal strips of the G5 ProLign Set
                      (swissdentacare, SDC, Grancia, Switzerland), four segmental
                      discs of the ASR-Set 4594 and two sonic tips of the
                      SonicLine Set (both Gebr. Basseler GmbH $\&$ Co. KG, Komet,
                      Lemgo, Germany) were evaluated. Human extracted incisors
                      served as the medium. Enamel reduction was determined in
                      five intervals of 15 s each. Polishing was performed for 15
                      and 30 s using the manufacturers’ recommended polishing
                      systems. Enamel roughness (Ra) was quantitatively assessed
                      by confocal laser scanning microscopy
                      (CLSM).ResultsSignificant differences in terms of enamel
                      reduction were found among the working ends of all tested
                      systems. The time needed to remove 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 mm of
                      enamel was determined. Surface analysis showed significantly
                      higher mean Ra values for nine out of ten working ends
                      before polishing. This was still the case for five working
                      ends after 15 s and for two after 30 s of
                      polishing.ConclusionThe graining and the system used have a
                      significant influence on enamel reduction. The time needed
                      for polishing depends on the last working end used; a
                      polishing time of 30 s is not always appropriate.Clinical
                      relevanceKnowledge about the cutting efficiency of powered
                      IER working ends might help the clinician to estimate better
                      the amount of enamel reduction during the stripping
                      process.},
      cin          = {IEK-1 / JARA-ENERGY},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-1-20101013 / $I:(DE-82)080011_20140620$},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF3-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000376403200006},
      doi          = {10.1007/s00784-015-1585-2},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/807069},
}