Comparison of the Debonding Characteristics of Conventional and New Debonding Instrument used for Ceramic, Composite and Metallic Brackets - An Invitro Study (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evaluation of Different Techniques for Debonding of Ceramic Brackets (An in Vitro Study)
Egyptian Orthodontic Journal, 2022
Objective: To compare different techniques for debonding of ceramic brackets in terms of adhesive remnant index (ARI). Material and methods: A sample of 100 extracted human premolars were randomly and equally allocated into 5 groups of 20. Thereafter, monocrystalline ceramic brackets were bonded to teeth using light cure composite resin. Among the 5 groups; group I: served as control, group II: chemical assisted debonding using peppermint oil, group III: ultrasonic assisted debonding, group IV: diode laser assisted debonding, and group V: Er: YAG laser assisted debonding. Brackets were then debonded using a universal testing machine, followed by ARI assessment. Results: A statistically significant higher ARI scores was found solely in Er:YAG laser assisted debonding. Yet, no significant difference was found with chemical, ultrasonic, and diode laser assisted debonding. Conclusion: Er:YAG laser could be effective for debonding of ceramic brackets. Hence, this method might be recommended to alleviate enamel damage.
Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study
The Scientific World Journal, 2021
Methods The current study includes 80 extracted premolars of human from the patient visiting for orthodontic treatment of Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences, Karnataka, India. The brackets were debonded using four different methods. The enamel surface damage after the procedure was assessed with the Enamel Surface Index (ESI); similarly, the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score was used to determine the adhesive residual deposit. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to visualize better microporosities and micromechanical retention of adhesive remnants on the enamel surface. The normality of the data was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Depending upon the normality test result, the one-way ANOVA test or Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test the mean ESI and mean ARI differences among different debonding methods along with the appropriate post hoc tests. The necessary ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the institute. Results The ultrasonic scaler ...
Applied Sciences, 2021
Fixed orthodontic therapies include several procedures that can affect the enamel surface. The aim of this study was to assess the action of composite resin on the surface of the tooth through variation of enamel changes after debonding metal and ceramic brackets, by means of scanning electron microscopy. An in vitro study was conducted on 48 human premolar specimens, which were extracted within a period of two months for orthodontic purposes. On half of them, metal brackets were bonded, and on the other half, ceramic brackets (Al2O3) were bonded, using light cure adhesive paste and a two-step, etch-and-bonding technique. The brackets were debonded after 24 h using a straight debonding plier. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined by visual observation of the specimen. Post-debonding scans were aligned with the baseline, and the surfaces’ changes were quantified. A quantitative analysis was made on the debonded brackets to determine the presence or absence of enamel on the ...
Loss of Surface Enamel after Bracket Debonding: An in-vivo and ex-vivo Evaluation.
Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the surface enamel after bracket debonding and residual resin removal. Methods: Thirty patients (female, 20; male, 10; mean age, 18.4 years) who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (Twin Brackets, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) (n 5 525) were included. The amounts of adhesive left on the tooth surfaces and the bracket bases were evaluated with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). ARI tooth (n 5 498) was assessed on digital photographs by 2 operators. After resin removal and polishing, epoxy replicas were made from the maxillary anterior teeth (n 5 62), and enamel surfaces were scored again with the enamel surface index. Elemental analysis was performed on the debonded bracket bases by using energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry mean area scanning analysis. The percentages of calcium and silicon were summed up to 100%. Tooth damage was estimated based on the incidence of calcium from enamel in relation to silicon from adhesive (Ca%) and the correlation between the ARI bracket and Ca%. Results and Conclusions: While ARI tooth results showed score 3 as the most frequent (41%) (P \0.05), followed by scores 0, 1, and 2 (28.7%, 17.9%, and 12.4%, respectively), ARI bracket results showed score 0 more often (40.6%) than the other scores (P \0.05). Maxillary anterior teeth had significantly more scores of 3 (49%) than the other groups of teeth (10%-25%) (chi-square; P \0.001). There were no enamel surface index scores of 0, 3, or 4. No correlation between the enamel surface index and ARI tooth scores was found (Spearman rho 5 0.014, P 5 0.91). The incidence of Ca% from the scanned brackets showed significant differences between the maxillary and mandibular teeth (14% 6 8.7% and 11.2% 6 6.5%, respectively; P \0.05), especially for the canines and second premolars (Kruskal-Wallis test, P \0.01). With more remnants on the bracket base, the Ca% was higher (Jonckheere Terpstra test, P\0.05). Iatrogenic damage to the enamel surface after bracket debonding was inevitable. Whether elemental loss from enamel has clinical significance is yet to be determined in a long-term clinical follow-up of the studied patient population. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:387.e1-387.e9)
Laser-aided debonding of orthodontic ceramic brackets
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1992
The removal of ceramic brackets from the enamel surface by means of laser heating was investigated with the use of CO2 and YAG lasers. The two bracket types investigated were polycrystalline alumina and monocryslalline alumina. The average torque force necessary to break the adhesive between the polycrystalline ceramic brackets and the tooth was lowered by a factor of 25 when the brackets were illuminated with a CO2 laser beam of 14 watts for 2 seconds. All polycrystalline brackets debonded with the CO2 laser resulted in a complete bracket detachment without bracket failure. The average torque force needed to debond monocrystalline brackets was lowered by a factor of 5.2 when illuminated with a laser setting of 7 watts. Monocrystalline brackets cracked along the bracket slot in 2 of 10 cases. Debracketing without laser heating resulted in a slightly higher incidence of bracket failure (12 of 50). Nevertheless, no visible damage to the enamel surface was observed. Advantages of the laser-aided bracket-removal techniques include the following: The heat produced is localized and controlled; the debracketing tool is essentially "cold"; and the method can be used for removal of various types of ceramic brackets, regardless of their design. (AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1992;101:152-8.)
BMC Oral Health, 2022
Background Risk of enamel damage that often accompanies ceramic brackets debonding raises the demand of finding an optimal method for debonding of them without adverse effects. Different techniques were proposed in an attempt to facilitate their debonding. Comparison of these techniques is crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare different techniques for debonding of ceramic brackets in terms of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index. Materials and methods A total of 100 extracted premolars were randomly allocated into 5 groups. Ceramic brackets were then bonded to teeth using light cure composite resin. Among test groups; group I: served as control, group II: chemical aided debonding via peppermint oil, group III: ultrasonic aided debonding, group IV: diode laser aided debonding, and group V: Er:YAG laser aided debonding. Brackets were shear tested using universal testing machine followed by ARI assessment and evaluation of enamel microstructure was perfor...
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.
BioMed Research International, 2021
Objective. To compare the orthodontic bracket debonding force and assess the bracket failure pattern clinically between different teeth by a validated prototype debonding device. Materials and Method. Thirteen (13) patients at the end of comprehensive fixed orthodontic treatment, awaiting for bracket removal, were selected from the list. A total of 260 brackets from the central incisor to the second premolar in both jaws were debonded by a single clinician using a validated prototype debonding device equipped with a force sensitive resistor (FSR). Mean bracket debonding forces were specified to ten (10) groups of teeth. Following debonding, Intraoral microphotographs of the teeth were taken by the same clinician to assess the bracket failure pattern using a 4-point scale of adhesive remnant index (ARI). Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey HSD and independent sample t-test to compare in vivo bracket debonding force, Cohen's kappa (κ), and a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test for the reliability and the assessment of ARI scoring. Results. A significant difference (p < 0:001) of mean debonding force was found between different types of teeth in vivo. Clinically, ARI scores were not significantly different (p = 0:921) between different groups, but overall higher scores were predominant. Conclusion. Bracket debonding force should be measured on the same tooth from the same arch as the significant difference of mean debonding force exists between similar teeth of the upper and lower arches. The insignificant bracket failure pattern with higher ARI scores confirms less enamel damage irrespective of tooth types.
2013
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background and aims. This in vitro study was designed to evaluate the effect of composite resin types and orthodontic debonding pliers on the amount of adhesive remnants and enamel damages using a novel method of measurement. Materials and methods. 120 extracted human premolars were randomly divided into four groups (n = 30). The stan-dard edgewise metallic brackets were bonded to the teeth with light-cured composite resin “Transbond XT ” in the first and second groups, and No-mix composite resin “Unite ” in the third and fourth groups. Bracket debonding was carried out with Lift Off Debonding Instrument “LODI ” (3M Unitek) in the first and third groups, and with Bracket Removing Pliers (Den-taurum) in the second and forth groups. yStereomicroscopic evaluation was performed by unbiased sterelogy. All teeth were evaluated for the amount of adhesive remnants and ...