Updated Barak levy 0 comments

Which IPR method is best: burs, discs or strips?

There is no single winner. Each method has advantages, depending on how much enamel you need to remove, how much control you want and the surface finish you are aiming for.

We reviewed eight sources comparing IPR burs, discs and strips on enamel removal, surface roughness, accuracy and long-term safety. Here is what the research tells us.

IPR burs vs discs vs strips: quick comparison

  • Enamel removal: in one lab test, discs removed the most enamel, then burs, then strips. Oscillating strips removed more than manual strips.[7][3]
  • Surface finish: every method left enamel rougher than untreated enamel. Strips were smoothest in the 2025 lab test, but the 2026 study found a significant difference only between discs and oscillating strips.[7][8]
  • Polishing: every method, polish after IPR. Polishing improved the enamel surface with every method tested.[8][2]
  • Accuracy: in clear aligner patients, motor-driven strips and oscillating discs delivered the planned reduction accurately. Hand-operated strips delivered significantly less.[6]
  • Long-term safety: clinical studies found no increase in caries, gingival problems or bone loss after IPR, although the clinical evidence is rated low to very low quality.[1][5]
Eagle Dental IPR burs
Eagle Dental IPR discs
Eagle Dental perforated IPR strips
Eagle Dental IPR burs, IPR discs and perforated IPR strips.

In this review

  1. What is interproximal reduction?
  2. IPR burs, discs and strips compared
  3. Enamel removal and efficiency
  4. Surface roughness
  5. Polishing matters, whichever method you use
  6. Accuracy in clear aligner treatment
  7. What does the research say about IPR safety?
  8. Burs, discs or strips: which should you choose?
  9. Limits of the evidence
  10. Conclusion
  11. Research behind this comparison
  12. References

What is interproximal reduction?

Interproximal reduction (IPR), also called enamel stripping, removes about 0.3–0.5 mm of enamel from the surfaces between neighboring teeth to create space, typically for mild to moderate crowding. It is commonly used together with clear aligners.[7]

A standard IPR sequence has four steps: opening the interproximal space, removing enamel, checking the reduction, and finishing or polishing.[7] The tool you choose affects the second and fourth steps most.

The four steps of interproximal reduction: open the space, remove enamel, check the reduction, polish
The four steps of interproximal reduction.

IPR burs, discs and strips compared

Tool Enamel removal Surface roughness Accuracy in aligner patients
Burs More than strips, less than discs in one lab test[7] Rougher than strips in the 2025 study;[7] the air rotor was among the roughest before polishing in the 2007 study[2] Not tested in the accuracy studies
Discs Most enamel removed in one lab test[7] Roughest in the 2025 study;[7] rougher than oscillating strips in the 2026 study[8] Motor-driven oscillating segmental discs delivered the planned reduction accurately[6]
Manual strips Least enamel removed;[7] 0.09 mm over eight test cycles[3] Smoothest in the 2025 study[7] Significantly less than planned;[6] accuracy of 44.95% (upper arch) and 37.02% (lower arch) in another study[4]
Oscillating or motor-driven strips More efficient than manual strips: 0.16 mm vs 0.09 mm[3] Lowest roughness after IPR in the 2026 study (significantly lower only than discs) and smoothest after polishing[8] Motor-driven abrasive strips delivered the planned reduction accurately[6]

Enamel removal and efficiency

How much enamel each tool removes varies. In a small lab test of 15 teeth, discs removed the most enamel, followed by burs, and strips removed the least. All three differences were statistically significant, and strips also showed the least abrasive wear.[7]

A separate test compared two strip systems on twelve premolars. Oscillating strips removed more enamel than manual strips (0.16 mm vs 0.09 mm over eight test cycles), with less enamel debris and fewer detached abrasive grains.[3]

In practice: motor-driven tools may make larger reductions faster, while manual strips suit small adjustments. This is our interpretation, not a study finding.

Surface roughness

All of the IPR techniques studied increased enamel roughness compared with untreated enamel. Few differences between instruments reached statistical significance. In the 2026 study, the only one was that discs left a rougher surface than oscillating strips.[8]

Importantly, the measured roughness stayed below the 200 nm level commonly cited as the point above which plaque accumulation increases.[8]

Earlier work points the same way. The 2025 lab study ranked strips smoothest, with both discs and burs significantly rougher than strips,[7] and the 2007 study found the air rotor and the Profin system roughest before polishing.[2]

Polishing matters, whichever method you use

Every method: polish after IPR.

One finding was consistent across the research: polishing improves the enamel surface after IPR. In the 2026 study, every method tested gave a smoother surface after polishing, and an oscillating strip followed by polishing gave the best result.[8] The 2007 study reached the same practical conclusion: IPR should be followed by thorough polishing.[2]

Related IPR tools: IPR burs · IPR strips · finishing and polishing

Accuracy in clear aligner treatment

In a prospective trial of 42 Invisalign patients, three IPR methods were compared with the planned amount: hand-operated abrasive strips (14 patients, 150 teeth), motor-driven 3/4 oscillating segmental discs (14 patients, 134 teeth) and motor-driven abrasive strips (14 patients, 133 teeth). Accuracy was high with both motor-driven methods and low with hand-operated strips, where the executed IPR was significantly less than planned. Patients were similarly comfortable with all three methods.[6]

An earlier study of manual strips in aligner cases estimated accuracy at 44.95% in the upper arch and 37.02% in the lower arch.[4] Neither accuracy study tested burs.

What does the research say about IPR safety?

Long-term clinical evidence is reassuring, although still limited.

A study of 61 consecutive patients, examined more than 10 years after IPR of all six lower front teeth (fine diamond discs, air cooling, then polishing), found no increase in caries, gingival problems or alveolar bone loss. 59 of 61 patients reported no increased sensitivity to temperature.[1]

A systematic review of 10 clinical studies with 274 patients reached similar conclusions, but rated the available clinical evidence as low to very low quality. The findings should therefore be read with some caution.[5]

Burs, discs or strips: which should you choose?

There is no single best IPR instrument for every situation. Based on these studies:

  • Faster, larger reductions: discs and burs removed more enamel than strips in the lab test, but they left rougher surfaces than strips in the small 2025 study, so allow time for polishing.[7]
  • Fine adjustments and finishing: strips left the smoothest surfaces in the 2025 study,[7] and an oscillating strip followed by polishing gave the best surface in the 2026 study.[8]
  • Aligner cases where the planned amount matters: motor-driven methods were more accurate than hand-operated strips,[6] and the trial verified each site with a metal interproximal gauge.
  • Every method: polish after IPR.[2][8]

In the shop: IPR burs · mosquito IPR burs · IPR discs · perforated IPR strips · dental abrasive strips · StripFix IPR finishing system · IPR kit

Limits of the evidence

  • Mostly laboratory studies. Four of the eight sources are laboratory studies on extracted teeth.[2][3][7][8]
  • Small sample sizes. The 2025 lab study used five teeth per group,[7] and the oscillating vs manual strip test used twelve premolars.[3]
  • Different instruments and protocols. Instruments, grits and speeds differ between studies (for example, the bur ran at 400,000 rpm with water cooling in the 2026 study),[8] so results may not transfer between products.
  • No accuracy studies on burs. The two accuracy studies covered strips and oscillating discs only.[4][6]
  • Limited clinical evidence. The systematic review rated the clinical studies low to very low quality.[5]

Conclusion

There is no single best method for interproximal reduction. In laboratory testing, discs and burs removed enamel efficiently, while strips left smoother surfaces in some studies and suit smaller adjustments. In aligner patients, motor-driven methods were more accurate than hand-operated strips.

Whichever technique you use, the research consistently supports one step: finish and polish the enamel after IPR. Long-term clinical evidence is reassuring, but larger clinical studies are still needed to compare IPR techniques directly.

Want the complete technique? Read our Ultimate Guide to Interproximal Reduction Techniques.

Explore Eagle Dental IPR burs, discs and strips
Everything for interproximal reduction, from opening the space to finishing. Free shipping over $250.

Need help choosing the right IPR tools? Contact the Eagle Dental team.

Research behind this comparison

Study In one sentence
Zachrisson et al., 2007[1] Followed 61 patients for more than 10 years after IPR of the lower front teeth and found no increase in caries, gingival problems or bone loss.
Danesh et al., 2007[2] Compared five IPR systems on 55 extracted teeth and found clear differences in enamel roughness before and after polishing.
Gazzani et al., 2019[3] Compared oscillating and manual strips on 12 extracted premolars; the oscillating system removed more enamel (0.16 mm vs 0.09 mm).
De Felice et al., 2020[4] Measured the accuracy of manual-strip IPR in clear aligner patients: 44.95% in the upper arch and 37.02% in the lower arch.
Gómez-Aguirre et al., 2022[5] Systematic review of 10 clinical studies (274 patients) that found no demineralization, caries increase or periodontal changes, but rated the evidence low to very low quality.
Güleç-Ergün et al., 2024[6] In 42 Invisalign patients, motor-driven strips and oscillating discs were accurate, while hand-operated strips delivered significantly less than planned.
Aphale et al., 2025[7] Lab study on 15 teeth in which discs removed the most enamel and strips the least, and strips left the smoothest surfaces.
Omar et al., 2026[8] Tested four methods on 54 premolars with and without polishing: all roughened enamel, polishing smoothed every group, and an oscillating strip plus polishing gave the best result.

References

  1. Zachrisson BU, Nyøygaard L, Mobarak K. Dental health assessed more than 10 years after interproximal enamel reduction of mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(2):162–169. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.001. PMID 17276856. DOI · PubMed
  2. Danesh G, Hellak A, Lippold C, Ziebura T, Schafer E. Enamel surfaces following interproximal reduction with different methods. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(6):1004–1010. doi:10.2319/041806-165.1. PMID 18004908. DOI · PubMed
  3. Gazzani F, Lione R, Pavoni C, Mampieri G, Cozza P. Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: oscillating versus manual strips. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:247. doi:10.1186/s12903-019-0934-y. PMID 31727047. DOI · PubMed
  4. De Felice ME, Nucci L, Fiori A, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L, Grassia V. Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod. 2020;21:28. doi:10.1186/s40510-020-00329-1. DOI · Full text (PMC)
  5. Gómez-Aguirre JN, Argueta-Figueroa L, Castro-Gutiérrez MEM, Torres-Rosas R. Effects of interproximal enamel reduction techniques used for orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022;25(3):304–319. doi:10.1111/ocr.12555. PMID 34865310. DOI · PubMed
  6. Güleç-Ergün P, Arman-Özçırpıcı A, Atakan-Kocabalkan A, Tunçer Nİ. Comparison of the accuracy of three interproximal reduction methods used in clear aligner treatment. Clin Oral Investig. 2024;28(1):95. doi:10.1007/s00784-024-05499-4. PMID 38221544. DOI · PubMed
  7. Aphale H, Kalaskar V, Nagmode S, Shinde V, Kolte R, Ingle V. Comparative analysis of slenderization methods and their impact on enamel surfaces using SEM: an in vitro study. Bioinformation. 2025;21(10):3697–3702. doi:10.6026/973206300213697. PMID 41623746. DOI · Full text (PDF)
    Note: the tables in this paper label units inconsistently (nanometres for enamel loss, millimetres for roughness), so this review reports only the direction of its results, not the raw numbers.
  8. Omar LM, El Gazzar RI, Montasser MA. Evaluation of enamel surface after interproximal reduction using different methods, with and without polishing: an in vitro study. Sci Rep. 2026;16:12224. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-46967-z. PMID 41975227. DOI · Full text
< Previous post Next post >

0 comments