Effects of Different Stain Removal Protocols on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel (original) (raw)
Related papers
The European Journal of Orthodontics, 2001
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the enamel colour changes associated with bonding of brackets with a no-mix (one-phase) adhesive resin (Unite) and a glassionomer adhesive (GC Fuji Ortho). Thirty recently extracted premolars were used in the investigation. Black rectangular pieces of adhesive tape with a 3-mm diameter window were used to standardize the enamel surface intended for analysis. The teeth were divided into two groups of 15 teeth each, brackets (Starfire TMB) were bonded with the two adhesives, and the enamel surfaces were colourimetrically evaluated at three time intervals: (a) before bonding (baseline), (b) following debonding and cleaning, and (c) after artificial photo-ageing for 24 hours. The CIE colour parameters (L*, a*, b*) were recorded and averaged for each material, interval group, and the corresponding colour differences (∆E) were calculated. The results were statistically analysed using two-way ANOVA repeated measures, and Scheffé multiple range test at α = 0.05 level of significance.
Applied Sciences
The purpose of this in vitro study was to analyze and identify a methodology for the improvement of the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with two orthodontic adhesive systems considered to be widely used, Transbond Plus Color Change with Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer and Fuji Ortho LC with orthophosphoric acid under various enamel conditions: dry, moistened with water and moistened with saliva. The sample size included a group of 120 freshly extracted premolars distributed into six study groups, each one of 20 teeth. A universal testing machine was used to detach the brackets. We determined and compared the strength of the two studied adhesive systems used in different enamel surface conditions. The mean shear bond strength values in groups 1 (TPCC, TSEP, dry), 2 (TPCC, TSEP, water), 3 (TPCC, TSEP, saliva), 4 (Fuji Ortho LC, etched, dry enamel), 5 (Fuji Ortho LC, etched enamel, water) and 6 (Fuji Ortho LC, etched enamel, saliva) were 15.86, 12.31, 13.04, 15.27...
The effect of orthodontic adhesive and bracket-base design in adhesive remnant index on enamel
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists, 2015
Background: The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of bracket-base design and adhesive on adhesive remnant index (ARI) and enamel surface area covered by adhesive. Methods: The sample consisted of 32 recently extracted premolars. The teeth were randomly assigned to one of four groups: conventional mesh base and composite resin; laser-etched base and composite resin; conventional mesh base and resin-modified glass ionomer; and laser-etched base and resin-modified glass ionomer. After a week, all brackets were debonded. The debonded bracket-base surface and the buccal surface of each tooth were studied under the microscope, and the remaining adhesive was scored using the ARI. The extent of coverage of the tooth by adhesive remnants was also calculated, outlining the different areas of adhesive. Results: A Fisher's exact test indicated significant differences between the groups. The adhesive resin group showed the highest ARI scores independent of the bracket-base design, whereas between the two bracket-base designs, the laser-etched bracket design showed higher ARI. ARI scores reliably depict the extent of enamel covered by adhesive compared with the measurement of the actual area covered. Conclusion: Varying the bracket base and adhesive may result in different ARI scores, which can affect the enamel surface during debonding.
Effect of different types of enamel conditioners on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets
The journal of contemporary dental practice, 2007
A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems in operative dentistry is they combine conditioning and priming agents into a single acidic primer solution for simultaneous use on both enamel and dentin. Combining conditioning and priming into a single treatment step results in improvement in both time and cost-effectiveness to the clinician and, indirectly, to the patient. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the use of a self-etching primer on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets and on the bracket/adhesive failure mode. Thirty-six fresh bovine incisors were collected and stored in a solution of 0.1% (weight/volume) thymol. The criteria for tooth selection included intact buccal enamel, no cracks caused by the presence of the extraction forceps, and no defects. The teeth were cleansed and polished with pumice and rubber prophylactic cups for ten seconds. Brackets were bonded to the teeth according to one of three protocols following the manufacturers&...
The effects of bracket removal on enamel
Australian orthodontic journal, 2008
Enamel cracks, which may develop during debonding orthodontic brackets, may jeopardise the integrity of the enamel and detract from the appearance of the teeth. To compare the adhesive remnant scores (ARI), the number, lengths and directions of enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding metal orthodontic brackets with three different methods. Metal brackets were bonded with a self-curing orthodontic adhesive to the buccal surfaces of 75 recently extracted upper and lower premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups, and the brackets removed either with a side-cutter, a single-blade bracket remover or a two-blade bracket remover. The number, directions and lengths of the enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding were compared. The number of 'pronounced' cracks (i.e. cracks that could be identified with the naked eye) and the ARI scores in each group were also compared. After debonding, the number of enamel cracks and pronounced cracks, and the len...
Three-dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1997
A mechanical computerized three-dimensional scanner with a resolution of 1 ixm was used to assess loss of enamel caused by orthodontic bonding and debonding. A total of 2646 measurements was performed on six human premolars. The results showed an average loss of enamel of 7.4 ixm. The range was between 1 and 52 Fm, which may account for discrepancies with earlier studies that measured only a few points per tooth surface. (Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;112:666-9.) E v e r since the introduction of the acidetch technique 1 and its use for bonding of orthodontic brackets, there has been discussion among orthodontists regarding the amount of enamel lost as a result of bonding and subsequent debonding. Damage to the enamel can be attributed to tooth cleaning with abrasives before etching, acid-etching, enamel fractures caused by forcibly removing brackets, or mechanical removal of remaining composite with rotary instruments, a'3 Remaining composite can be removed from the enamel surface by hand instruments or rotating abrasive tools. Factors such as the time needed for complete removal and potential damage to the enamel are essential to the clinician. The effect of different instruments on the surface of tooth enamel has been the subject of many studies and is therefore well known. 2,4-7 There are, however, few publications concerned with quantification of enamel loss. Zachrisson and Artun 5 concluded from the postoperative presence of perikymata, that the amount of enamel lost was minimal. This conclusion was refuted by Brown and Way, s who could show that even with enamel loss as high as 50 jxm, perikymata could still be observed. Quantitative measurements were performed either by judging the distance between an intraenamel implant and the enamel surface before and after bonding and debonding with a miniaturized boley gaug, 8 or by optical profilometric techniques, a,9 Both From the
Acta Medica Academica
Objectives. The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate qualitatively the surface topography at the bracket-adhesive-enamel junction, bonded to the buccal and lingual surfaces of premolars with composite resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer orthodontic adhesives, using two methods of adhesive removal: a dental explorer and a micro brush. Methods. Forty premolar surfaces were allocated to four groups of 10/ each, 20/buccal and 20/lingual surfaces. The brackets were bonded to the surface of the enamel and any extra adhesive was removed with a dental explorer or a micro brush. Specimens were evaluated and scored by two calibrated independent raters, at the bracketadhesive-enamel junction, for adhesive overlap on the bracket, the smoothness of the surface, as well as the presence of projections and depressions, using a digital microscope. The Fisher-exact statistical test was conducted to compare the different groups. Results. Regardless of the method used to remove the adhesives , all groups showed partial or complete overlap of the adhesive on the bracket. No statistical difference was found between the groups for adhesive overlap (P=1.0). However, resin-modified glass-ionomer was found to be statistically significantly (P<0.05) better than composite resin in both smoothness and the lack of projections or depressions, regardless of the instrument of removal. Conclusion. Removing excess adhesive with a dental explorer or a micro brush is not an ideal method for adhesive removal, as partial or complete overlap of the adhesive on the bracket existed in all groups. On the other hand, resin-modified glassionomer was a superior material to composite resin for better smoothness and surface topography at the bracket-adhesive-enamel junction.
Journal of Orthodontic Science, 2015
Objectives: To conduct an epidemiological survey of the orthodontic debonding techniques in Italy, and describe the most commonly used methods to remove the brackets and adhesive from the tooth surfaces. Materials and Methods: A survey consisting of 6 questions about bracket debonding methods and instruments used was emailed to 1000 orthodontists, who were members of the Italian Orthodontics Society (SIDO. Clinicians were characterized by different sex, age, origin, and professional experience. Results: Overall, 267 surveys were returned, representing a response rate of 26.7% of the participants interviewed. The 0.2% of the orthodontists responded, via email, confirming that they were not interested, while 3% of the questionnaires were sent back not completed. The 70.1% of the clinicians interviewed did not return any response. Overall, 64% of SIDO members (orthodontists) did not detect any enamel damage after debonding. The brackets used most frequently (89.14%) in clinical practice were the metal ones. The most commonly used pliers for bracket removal were cutters (37.08%) and bracket removal pliers (34.83%). For adhesive removal, low speed tungsten carbide burs under irrigation were the most widely utilized method for adhesive removal (40.08%), followed by high speed carbide burs (14.19%), and diamond burs (14.19%). The most frequently used instruments for polishing after debonding were rubber cups (36.70%) and abrasive discs (21.35%). The 31.21% of the orthodontists found esthetic enamel changes before bonding versus after debonding. Conclusions: This survey showed the high variability of different methods for bracket debonding, adhesive removal, and tooth polishing. The collected answers indicate that most orthodontists have developed their own armamentarium of debonding and polishing, basing their method on trials and errors.