In vivo debonding strength and enamel damage in two orthodontic debonding methods

Structural and Color Alterations of Teeth following Orthodontic Debonding: A Systematic Review

AIM

The objective of this study was to explore the effects of fixed orthodontic appliances on enamel structure by assessing microfractures, surface roughness, and alterations in color.

METHODS

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic search of online databases was conducted using the keywords 'enamel' AND 'orthodontic debonding'. Eligibility criteria included both in vivo and ex vivo clinical trials conducted on human teeth.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 14 relevant papers were analyzed. Various instruments and techniques were utilized across different studies to assess surface roughness, color change, and surface fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that ceramic brackets may lead to an increase in enamel fractures, particularly during bracket removal. The surface roughness of enamel exhibits variability depending on the adhesive substance and polishing methods used post-removal. Fixed orthodontic appliances could induce changes in enamel color, which may be alleviated by the use of nano-hydroxyapatite or specific polishing techniques. Further research is necessary to identify effective strategies for managing these color changes and improving the overall outcomes of fixed orthodontic treatment.

Efficacy of Er, Cr: YSGG laser phosphoric acid gel and Riboflavin activated by Photodynamic therapy on enamel reconditioning rebonded to metallic brackets: An Invitro study

AIM

To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure percentage of rebonded metallic brackets after employing various enamel-reconditioning methods (37% phosphoric acid, sandblasting, Er, Cr: YSGG laser, and Riboflavin (RF).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After sample size calculation, a sum of 40 non-carious, non-traumatically extracted and sound human premolar teeth were collected and the enamel surface was prepped by etching, washing, and drying. The enamel surface was primed with a bonding agent and light cured, later brackets were bonded via composite. After bonding, bracket debonding was begun using a Weingart plier and the enamel surface was reconditioned before rebonding. Samples were divided into four (n=10) reconditioning groups at random and subjected to SB with 90-μm alumina particles group 1, Er, Cr: YSGG laser group 2, 37% PA (control) group 3, and RF group 4 respectively. After reconditioning, brackets were rebonded to the enamel surface via an adhesive system and composite. Later, samples were exposed to the universal testing machine for SBS analysis, and bond failure analysis was performed by using an adhesive remnant index (ARI). Statistical analysis was executed by one-way ANOVA and Post Hoc Tukey multiple comparison tests at a statistically significant level of p ˂ 0.05.

RESULTS

The SBS analysis showed that the highest SBS of rebounded brackets was exhibited by 37% phosphoric acid (control) and the lowest SBS by sandblasting enamel surface with 90-μm alumina particles for enamel prior rebonding. However, Er, Cr: YSGG laser and RF activated by PDT validated comparable SBS results to control (p>0.05). Contrarily, sandblasting with 90-μm alumina particles showed a statistically significant difference from other analyzed reconditioning groups (p<0.05). Deliberating failure rate analysis by ARI index, the most eminent failures predicted among groups were scored between 0 and 1 except for sandblasting which majorly resulted in a score of 2 showing cohesive type failure.

CONCLUSION

Chromium-doped erbium, yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser, and Riboflavin activated by photodynamic therapy have the potential to be used as an alternative to 37% phosphoric acid for enamel surface reconditioning before the rebonding metallic bracket.

Correlation between dental enamel chemical composition and bracket debonding, comparing adhesive systems through a scanning electron microscope

Literature reports indicate that during bracket removal there can be enamel damage. We compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and tooth enamel loss of four adhesive systems and identify the Ca/P ratio. Then a total of 20 premolars were divided into four groups of five each. After prophylaxis, photographs were taken at 35× with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and analyzed with X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) at 250×. Brackets were bonded with Transbond™ MIP(G1), Transbond™ PLUS SEP(G2), Enlight(G3) and Stylus®(G4) adhesives, 24 h after were debonded with a Instron universal testing machine at 1 mm/min. All the brackets were photographed with the SEM. The amount of lost enamel was measured with AutoCad. All the results were measured with a significance level p < .05. The SBS general average at debonding was 7.94 ± 2.26 MPa, meanwhile the SBS for G1, G2, G3 and G4 was 9.38 ± 1.46, 6.28 ± 0.69, 9.08 ± 2.45 and 7.04 ± 2.64 MPa respectively. 90% of the samples had no enamel loss, 10% had enamel loss. Only two samples in G1 presented an enamel loss area of 0.34mm² and 0.80mm² respectively. From EDS analysis, the Ca/P ratio was 1.6 ± 0.05, 1.61 ± 0.03, 1.64 ± 0.83 and 1.59 ± 0.07 for G1, G2, G3 and G4 respectively; no statistically significant differences were found. We conclude that no association was found between the Ca/P ratio and enamel damage when brackets are removed.

Enamel surface roughness evaluation after bracket debonding: Comparison between light cure and self cure adhesive resin 3-Dimensional profilometric study

Introduction

After fixed orthodontic treatment, following bracket removal, the debonding procedure should lead to restitutio ad integrum of the enamel or, at least, restore the enamel surface as closely as possible to its pretreatment condition. Adhesion of brackets in orthodontics is that they should be strong enough to prevent failure during all treatment but also low enough, so that enamel damage would be minimal during bracket removal after treatment.

Material and Methods

A total of 60 premolars were collected and stored in distilled water. The extracted teeth were divided into two groups of 30 each, group A was to be bonded with self-cure adhesive while group B light cure adhesive was to be used. A standardised protocol was followed for adhering the brackets to the tooth surfaces. All the teeth were bonded with metal brackets (3M Unitek, Gemini Twin Brackets 0.022 slot). In group A, bonding adhesive (3M Unitek self cure adhesive primer) was applied. In group B, the bonding adhesive (3M Unitek light cure adhesive primer) was photopolymerized for 10 seconds after application.

Results

Surface roughness of enamel as assessed by profilometry shows that light cure adhesive creates more roughness as compared to self cure adhesive. To conclude, self cure adhesive is clinically better than light cure adhesive.

Discussion

In the present study enamel surface roughness were compared after debonding. Enamel surface roughness after bracket debonding depends on a host of factors, which include - brackets, adhesive used and method of remnant removal.

Comparison of Orthodontic Bracket Debonding Force and Bracket Failure Pattern on Different Teeth In Vivo by a Prototype Debonding Device

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.

Comparison of shear bond strength and ARI of four different adhesive systems used to bond molar tubes: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine and compare the shear bond strength and ARI score of one traditional etch-and-rinse adhesive system serving as control, with those of two other all-in-one adhesives but with enamel acid etching preceding their application, and of one new 8th generation all-in-one bonding agent combined with a traditional adhesive used to bond stainless steel buccal tubes to molar teeth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four groups of teeth were formulated according to the adhesive system used to bond the tubes on the molars. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine (Hounsfield, UK). After debonding, each enamel surface was imaged using Inspex HD l080p Vesa camera (Ash Technologies Ltd., Ireland) to determine the ARI score.

RESULTS

The mean SBSs in MPa for the four groups were respectively: A: 9.640 (±3.69), B: 10.261 (±3.03), C: 9.689 (±2.48), D: 8.412 (±3.02). No statistically significant differences were neither found through one-way ANOVA to exist between the group means (P: 0.715), nor for the ARI score frequence through Chi² (P: 0.534). Maxcem Elite showed four and G-Premio Bond zero instances of enamel fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

1. SBSs of all adhesives and ARI score distributions did not present any significant differences when used to bond stainless steel molar tubes. 2. All adhesives presented with acceptable shear bond strengths for clinical use. 3. Maxcem Elite under the tested conditions presented the greatest and G-Premio the least number of enamel fractures.

Assessment of in vivo bond strength studies of the orthodontic bracket-adhesive system: A systematic review

The aim of this study was to systematically review the available studies measuring the bond strength of orthodontic bracket-adhesive system under different experimental conditions in vivo. Literature search was performed in four different databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus using the keywords – bond strength, orthodontic brackets, bracket-adhesive, and in vivo. A total of six full-text articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of our study after a careful assessment by the two independent reviewers. Data selection was performed by following PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Five of the selected studies were clinical trials; one study was a randomized clinical trial. From each of the selected articles, the following data were extracted – number of samples, with the type of tooth involved materials under experiment methods of measurement, the time interval between bonding and debonding orthodontic brackets, mode of force application, and the bond strength results with the overall outcome. The methodological quality assessment of each article was done by the modified Downs and Black checklist method. The qualitative analyses were done by two independent reviewers. Conflicting issues were resolved in a consensus meeting by consulting the third reviewer (MKA). Meta-analysis could not be performed due to the lack of homogenous study results. The review reached no real conclusion apart from the lack of efforts to clinically evaluate the bonding efficiency of a wide range of orthodontic bracket-adhesive systems in terms of debonding force compared to laboratory-based in vitro and ex vivo studies.

Validation and reliability of a prototype orthodontic bracket debonding device equipped with force-sensitive resistor (FSR): a novel method of measuring orthodontic bracket debonding force in vivo

Background

To introduce an orthodontic bracket debonding device capable of measuring debonding force clinically by a novel sensor mechanism

Materials and method

A prototype orthodontic debonding device was constructed utilizing a lift-off debonding instrument (LODI) and force-sensitive resistor (FSR). For data interpretation, the force sensor was equipped with a microcontroller and C++ programming software running on a computer. Ninety-nine (99) 0.022-in. conventional metallic brackets were bonded to premolar teeth in vitro by a single clinician applying the same adhesive and bonding technique. For validation, the mean debonding force measured by the prototype debonding device (n = 30) and the universal testing machine (n = 30) was compared. Both intra- and inter-examiner reliability tests were done by holding and operating the device in a standardized manner. Following debonding by the prototype device, the bracket failure pattern was evaluated (n = 30) by adhesive remnant index (ARI) under the stereomicroscope at × 30 magnification. Statistical analysis included independent samples t test for validation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval for both intra- and inter-examiner reliability.

Results

Mean orthodontic bracket debonding force measured by the prototype device (9.36 ± 1.65 N) and the universal testing machine (10.43 ± 2.71 N) was not significantly different (p < 0.05). The prototype device exhibited excellent intra- [ICC (3, 1) = 0.942] and inter-examiner reliability [ICC (2, 1) = 0.921] and was able to debond brackets mostly at the bracket-adhesive interface.

Limitation

Due to adjusting the position and mechanism of the force sensor, the device had to be held in a modified standardized position.

Conclusion

A novel method of measuring in vivo orthodontic bracket debonding force has been introduced which proved to be validated, reliable, and safe in terms of enamel damage.

Shear bond strength of new and rebonded orthodontic brackets to the enamel surfaces

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of new and rebounded orthodontic brackets bonded to the buccal sound and cleaned enamel surfaces using two orthodontic adhesives: resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGI) and resin-composite.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty premolars were randomly allocated into four groups, 10 teeth/group. New and rebonded brackets were bonded to sound and cleaned enamel surface, and then were subjected to thermocycling. The bond strength was determined using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Remaining adhesives on enamel after bracket debonding was scored independently by two investigators who were not aware of the four different groups, using adhesive remnant index (ARI).

RESULTS

There was a statistical significant difference in SBS of the four groups (P = 0.005). SBS values were significantly higher with cleaned enamel surfaces after adhesive removal compared to sound enamel. SBS was significantly higher for rebonded brackets, when compared with the new brackets. No significant difference was found between the two adhesives types. The level of agreement between the two raters was higher toward the classification of higher categories of ARI (scores 5 and 6) with agreement percentage 91.7% and 100%, respectively. There was more adhesive remained among resin-composite groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The bond strength of debonded sandblasted stainless-steel brackets was higher than new brackets. Resin-composite and RMGI orthodontic adhesives used in this study exhibited sufficient SBS values for bonding brackets to sound and cleaned enamel and comparable to each other.

Prototype to measure bracket debonding force in vivo

Introduction:

Material biodegradation that occurs in the mouth may interfere in the bonding strength between the bracket and the enamel, causing lower bond strength values in vivo, in comparison with in vitro studies.

Objective:

To develop a prototype to measure bracket debonding force in vivo and to evaluate, in vitro, the bond strength obtained with the prototype.

Methods:

A original plier (3M Unitek) was modified by adding one strain gauge directly connected to its claw. An electronic circuit performed the reading of the strain gauge, and the software installed in a computer recorded the values of the bracket debonding force, in kgf. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to the facial surface of 30 bovine incisors with adhesive materials. In Group 1 (n = 15), debonding was carried out with the prototype, while tensile bond strength testing was performed in Group 2 (n = 15). A universal testing machine was used for the second group. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was recorded.

Results:

According to Student’s t test (α = 0.05), Group 1 (2.96 MPa) and Group 2 (3.08 MPa) were not significantly different. ARI score of 3 was predominant in the two groups.

Conclusion:

The prototype proved to be reliable for obtaining in vivo bond strength values for orthodontic brackets.

Assessment of Bracket Surface Morphology and Dimensional Change

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the surface morphology and dimensional stability of the bracket slot at the onset of treatment and after 12 months of intraoral exposure. The study also compared the amount of calcium at the bracket base which indicates enamel loss among the three orthodontic brackets following debonding after 12 months of intraoral exposure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample consisted of 60 (0.022" MBT) canine brackets. They were divided into three groups: self-ligating, ceramic bracket with metal slot, and stainless steel (SS) brackets. The slot dimensions, micromorphologic characteristics of as-received and retrieved brackets were measured with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM), respectively. The amount of calcium at the bracket base which indicates enamel damage was quantified using energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX).

RESULTS

The results showed statistically significant alterations (P < 0.05) in the right vertical dimension, internal tie wing width (cervical), right and left depth of the slot (Kruskal-Wallis test). Multiple comparison using Mann-Whitney test showed that ceramic brackets underwent (P < 0.05) minimal alterations in the right vertical dimension, internal tie wing width (cervical), right and left depth of the slot (0.01 mm, -0.003 mm, 0.006 mm, -0.002 mm, respectively) when compared with the changes seen in SS and self-ligating brackets. SEM analysis revealed an increase in the surface roughness of ceramic with metal slot brackets and self-ligating bracket showed the least irregularity. The presence of calcium was noted on all evaluated brackets under EDX, but ceramic with metal slot brackets showed a significantly greater amount of enamel loss (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Ceramic brackets were found to be dimensionally stable when compared to SS and self-ligating. Self-ligating bracket showed minimal surface irregularity. Ceramic with metal slot brackets showed a greater amount of enamel loss following debonding.

Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate orthodontic debonding methods by comparing the surface roughness and enamel morphology of teeth after applying two different debonding methods and three different polishing techniques.

Methods

Forty eight human maxillary premolars, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were randomly divided into three groups. Brackets were bonded to teeth with RMGIC (Fuji Ortho LC, GC, Tokyo, Japan) (two groups, n = 18 each) after acid etching (30s), light cured for 40 s, exposed to thermocycling, then underwent 2 different bracket debonding methods: debonding pliers (Shinye, Hangzhou, China) or enamel chisel (Jinzhong, Shanghai, China); the third group (n = 12) comprised of untreated controls, with normal enamel surface roughness. In each debonded group, three cleanup techniques (n = 6 each) were tested, including (I) diamond bur (TC11EF, MANI, Tochigi, Japan) and One-Gloss (Midi, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), (II) a Super-Snap disk (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), and (III) One-Gloss polisher. The debonding methods were compared using the modified adhesive remnant index (ARI, 1–5). Cleanup efficiencies were assessed by recording operating times. Enamel surfaces were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and surface roughness tester, respectively. Two surface roughness variables were evaluated: Ra (average roughness) and Rz (10-point height of irregularities).

Results

The ARI scores of debonded teeth were similar with debonding pliers and enamel chisel (Chi-square = 2.19, P > 0.05). There were significant differences between mean operating time in each group (F = 52.615, P < 0.01). The diamond bur + One-Gloss took the shortest operating time (37.92 ± 3.82 s), followed by the Super-Snap disk (56.67 ± 7.52 s), and the One-Gloss polisher (63.50 ± 6.99 s). SEM appearance provided by the One-Gloss polisher was the closest to the intact enamel surface, and surface roughness (Ra: 0.082 ± 0.046 μm; Rz: 0.499 ± 0.200 μm) was closest to the original enamel (Ra: 0.073 ± 0.048 μm; Rz: 0.438 ± 0.213 μm); the next best was the Super-Snap disk (Ra: 0.141 ± 0.073 μm; Rz: 1.156 ± 0.755 μm); then, the diamond bur + One-Gloss (Ra: 0.443 ± 0.172 μm; Rz: 2.202 ± 0.791 μm).

Conclusions

Debonding pliers were safer than enamel chisels for removing brackets. Cleanup with One-Gloss polisher provided enamel surfaces closest to the intact enamel, but took more time, and Super-Snap disks provided acceptable enamel surfaces and efficiencies. The diamond bur was not suitable for removing adhesive remnant.

Comparison of shear bond strength to clinically simulated debonding of orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To assess in vitro the quantitative and qualitative debonding behavior of the AEZ debonding plier, compared to shear debonding force, in debonding orthodontic metal brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two extracted premolars bonded with metal brackets were randomly divided into two equal groups according to the type of simulated debonding method; compressive bond strength (CBS) group using AEZ debonding plier (Ormco Corporation, USA) attached to the Instron machine, and shear bond strength (SBS) group using regular Instron attachments. All teeth were subjected to debonding forces, and debonding strength was assessed. The buccal surfaces were then examined, under a stereomicroscope, and adhesive remnants were scored using adhesive remnant index (ARI). Debonding strengths comparison was performed using the independent sample t-test. ARI score comparison was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Correlation between debonding strength and ARI scores was performed using the Spearman correlation.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in mean debonding strength between the SBS (M = 6.17 ± 0.77 MPa) and CBS (M = 6.68 ± 1.67 MPa) groups (P > 0.05). The CBS group showed significantly less adhesive remnants than the SBS group (P < 0.05); 62.5% of CBS group had ARI score 1, whereas 68.8% of SBS group had ARI score 3. No significant correlation between ARI and debonding strength was found (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SBS was found to produce similar debonding strength to the AEZ debonding plier in vitro. However, the AEZ debonding plier resulted in less adhesive remnant which is of great advantage for reducing chair-time during cleanup after debonding brackets.

Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surface alteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up -comparison of three different tools

Background

The present study aimed at 3D analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss following the debonding of orthodontic molar tubes and orthodontic clean-up to assess the effectiveness and safety of One-Step Finisher and Polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover in comparison to tungsten carbide bur.

Materials and methods

Thirty human molars were bonded with chemical-cure orthodontic adhesive (Unite, 3M, USA), stored 24 h in 0.9 % saline solution, debonded and cleaned using three methods (Three groups of ten): tungsten carbide bur (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany), one-step finisher and polisher (One gloss, Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan) and Adhesive Residue Remover (Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany). Direct 3D scanning in blue-light technology to the nearest 2 μm was performed before etching and after adhesive removal. Adhesive remnant height and volume as well as enamel loss depth and volume were calculated.

An index of effectiveness and safety was proposed and calculated for every tool; adhesive remnant volume and duplicated enamel lost volume were divided by a sum of multiplicands. Comparisons using parametric ANOVA or nonparametric ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare between tools for adhesive remnant height and volume, enamel loss depth and volume as well as for the proposed index.

Results

No statistically significant differences in the volume (p = 0.35) or mean height (p = 0.24) of adhesive remnants were found (ANOVA rank Kruskal-Wallis test) between the groups of teeth cleaned using different tools. Mean volume of enamel loss was 2.159 mm³ for tungsten carbide bur, 1.366 mm³ for Shofu One Gloss and 0.659 mm³ for Adhesive Residue Remover - (F = 2.816, p = 0.0078). A comparison of the proposed new index between tools revealed highly statistically significant differences (p = 0.0081), supporting the best value for Adhesive Residue Remover and the worst – for tungsten carbide bur.

Conclusions

The evaluated tools were all characterized by similar effectiveness. The most destructive tool with regards to enamel was the tungsten carbide bur, and the least was Adhesive Residue Removal.

SEM-Evaluation of enamel surfaces after orthodontic debonding: a 6 and 12-month follow-up in vivo study

The purpose of this in vivo study was to compare the morphology of the enamel surfaces before bracket bonding and 6 and 12 months after debonding. Replicas of thirty-two maxillary second premolars of 16 volunteers were made before bracket bonding (T0), after debonding (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) later. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of the labial enamel surfaces were taken at T0, T1, T2, and T3 at increasing magnifications and analyzed according to the enamel damage index EDI. Data evaluation by using Friedman test followed by Wilcoxon signed ranks test with Bonferroni adjustment did not reveal statistically significant differences in the mean EDI at T0, T2, and T3, whereas the mean EDI at T1 was significantly higher than at T0, T2, and T3 (p < 0.05). The debonding procedure tested in this study produces no clinically relevant enamel damage. These alterations are reversible indeed, as a progressive restoration to pretreatment condition is evident after 6 months already and even more after 12 months.

Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes

AIMS

Presenting a new method for direct, quantitative analysis of enamel surface. Measurement of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding molar tubes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Buccal surfaces of fifteen extracted human molars were directly scanned with an optic blue-light 3D scanner to the nearest 2 μm. After 20 s etching molar tubes were bonded and after 24 h storing in 0.9% saline - debonded. Then 3D scanning was repeated. Superimposition and comparison were proceeded and shape alterations of the entire objects were analyzed using specialized computer software. Residual adhesive heights as well as enamel loss depths have been obtained for the entire buccal surfaces. Residual adhesive volume and enamel loss volume have been calculated for every tooth.

RESULTS

The maximum height of adhesive remaining on enamel surface was 0.76 mm and the volume on particular teeth ranged from 0.047 mm3 to 4.16 mm3. The median adhesive remnant volume was 0.988 mm3. Mean depths of enamel loss for particular teeth ranged from 0.0076 mm to 0.0416 mm. Highest maximum depth of enamel loss was 0.207 mm. Median volume of enamel loss was 0.104 mm3 and maximum volume was 1.484 mm3.

CONCLUSIONS

Blue-light 3D scanning is able to provide direct precise scans of the enamel surface, which can be superimposed in order to calculate shape alterations. Debonding molar tubes leaves a certain amount of adhesive remnants on the enamel, however the interface fracture pattern varies for particular teeth and areas of enamel loss are present as well.

Periodontal ligament strain induced by different orthodontic bracket removal techniques: nonlinear finite-element comparison study

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this work was to biomechanically analyze several different methods of bracket debonding and compare the strain they induce in the periodontal ligament (PDL).

METHODS

The CT dataset of an anatomical specimen was divided into four segmental models of the mandible. Each model covered one tooth (32, 42, 44, and 47). One of these teeth (32) was characterized by marked loss of periodontal attachment. After suitable finite-element models were generated, material properties were defined as nonlinear for PDL and anisotropic for the alveolar bone. This was followed by simulating four bracket debonding techniques: frontal and lateral torquing, bracket-wing compression, and shear stress applied with specially designed pliers.

RESULTS

The greatest strain was measured at the periodontally compromised tooth site 32 in response to frontal and lateral torquing. Both techniques also resulted in great strain around the other three teeth. Strain was markedly lower with the shear technique and virtually negligible with the compression technique. All simulated tooth sites confirmed the PDL-sparing effect of bracket-wing compression.

CONCLUSION

The severity of PDL strain during orthodontic bracket removal depends on the debonding method used. The technique of compressing the bracket wings appears to trigger the smallest effect on PDL. Clinical studies should be undertaken to confirm these findings.

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the debonding procedure leads to restitutio ad integrum of the enamel surface by investigating the presence of enamel within the bracket base remnants after debonding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances were included. A total of 1068 brackets were microphotographed; the brackets presenting some remnants on the base (n = 818) were selected and analyzed with ImageJ software to measure the remnant area. From this population a statistically significant sample (n = 100) was observed under a scanning electron microscope to check for the presence of enamel within the remnants. Energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry was also performed to obtain quantitative data.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in the remnant percentage between arches were observed for incisor and canine brackets (P < .0001 and P = .022, respectively). From a morphologic analysis of the scanning electron micrographs the bracket bases were categorized in 3 groups: group A, bases presenting a thin enamel coat (83%); group B, bases showing sizable enamel fragments (7%); group C, bases with no morphologic evidence of enamel presence (10%). Calcium presence was noted on all evaluated brackets under energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry. No significant difference was observed in the Ca/Si ratio between group A (16.21%) and group B (18.77%), whereas the Ca/Si ratio in group C (5.40%) was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P < .323 and P = .0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The objective of an atraumatic debonding is not achieved yet; in some cases the damage could be clinically relevant.

Orthodontic bracket debonding: risk of enamel fracture

OBJECTIVES

Until now, it is not clear if various procedures of bracket debonding differ with regard to their risk of enamel fracture. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare these procedures biomechanically for assessing the risk of complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anisotropic finite element method (FEM) model of the mandibular bone including periodontal ligament, enamel, dentin, and an orthodontic bracket was created. The morphology based on the CT data of an anatomical specimen. Typical loading conditions were defined for each method of bracket debonding (compression, shearing off, twisting off). Shortly before the adhesive's break, the induced stress in enamel, periodontal ligament, and in the alveolar bone was measured. The statistical analysis of the obtained values was performed in SPSS 19.0.

RESULTS

Relatively high stresses occurred in the enamel using frontal torque (max. 44.18 MPa). With shearing off, the stresses were also high (max. 41.96 MPa), and additionally high loads occurred on the alveolar bone as well (max. 11.79 MPa). Moderate maximum values in enamel and alveolar bone appeared during the compression of the bracket wings (max. 37.12 MPa) and during debonding by lateral torque (max. 35.18 MPa).

CONCLUSIONS

The present simulation results indicate that the risk of enamel fracture may depend on the individual debonding procedure. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm that.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For patients with prior periodontal disease or loosened teeth, a debonding procedure by compression of the bracket wings is recommended, since here the load for the periodontal structures of the tooth is lowest.

The effect of acidulated phosphate fluoride incorporated phosphoric acid etchant on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Background:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of adding acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) to phosphoric acid etchant on shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of orthodontic brackets bonded to etched teeth.

Methods:

In this in vitro experimental study, 40 human premolars were etched with 37% phosphoric acid solution (Dentsply) blended with 0, 25%, 50%, and 75% fractions of 1.23% APF (Dentsply). The brackets (Mini Dyna Lock, 3M) were bonded (Transbond XT, 3M) and were subjected to 96 hours of 37°C incubation and thermocycling procedures (2000 cycles, 5–55°C, dwell time = 30 s). Then, they were debonded at 1-mm crosshead speed to measure the SBS. The ARI was estimated at 10× magnification. The data were analyzed using the tests one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey, chi-square, one-sample t-test, and Spearman correlation.

Results:

The SBS of the groups control, 25%, 50%, and 75% APF were 11.90±2.72, 8.01±3.13, 5.40±2.51, and 3.27±2.01 MPa, respectively. Mean ARI scores of these groups were 2.4 (control), 4.3, 4.7, and 4.8, respectively. According to the Tukey′s test, only the mean SBS of the second group (25%) was not different from the control group (P=0.091).

Conclusion:

Adding about 20–25% of 1.23% APF to the phosphoric acid etchant might considerably reduce the amount of residual adhesive, without compromising the SBS.

In-vitro study of the effect of casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium fluoride phosphate on iatrogenic damage to enamel during orthodontic adhesive removal

INTRODUCTION

White-spot lesions (WSL) might be susceptible to mechanical damage during orthodontic bracket and adhesive removal. The aims of this in-vitro study were to investigate enamel loss on bracket and adhesive removal when the brackets were surrounded by WSL and to determine the effect of remineralizing these lesions with a 1% (w/v) casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium fluoride phosphate (CPP-ACFP) solution before bracket and adhesive removal.

METHODS

Precoated metal mandibular incisor brackets were centrally bonded onto polished third molars and WSL produced by exposure to a demineralization buffer for 4, 12, and 30 days (n = 20 per group). Half of the demineralized window was covered with acid-resistant nail varnish, and the specimens were then subjected to remineralization with 1% CPP-ACFP. Brackets and residual adhesive were removed, and enamel damage was assessed by digital photography, profilometry, and scanning electron microscopy. Lesion depth, mineral loss, and remineralization were measured by transverse microradiography.

RESULTS

WSL enamel around the bracket was more susceptible to iatrogenic damage at adhesive removal compared with sound enamel. Remineralization of lesions with 1% CPP-ACFP before adhesive removal significantly (P <0.002) reduced the area and depth of damage.

CONCLUSIONS

Remineralizing WSLs with CPP-ACFP before adhesive removal reduced iatrogenic enamel damage.

Finite element sub-modeling analyses of damage to enamel at the incisor enamel/adhesive interface upon de-bonding for different orthodontic bracket bases

This study investigates the micro-mechanical behavior associated with enamel damage at an enamel/adhesive interface for different bracket bases subjected to various detachment forces using 3-D finite element (FE) sub-modeling analysis. Two FE macro-models using triangular and square bracket bases subjected to shear, tensile and torsional de-bonding forces were established using μCT images. Six enamel/adhesive interface sub-models with micro- resin tag morphology and enamel rod arrangement were constructed at the corresponding stress concentrations in macro-model results. The boundary conditions for the sub-models were determined from the macro-model results and applied in sub-modeling analysis. The enamel and resin cement stress concentrations for triangular and square bases were observed at the adhesive bottom towards the occlusal surface under shear force and at the mesial and distal side planes under tensile force. The corresponding areas under torsional force were at the three corners of the adhesive for the triangular base and at the adhesive bottom toward/off the occlusal surface for the square base. In the sub-model analysis, the concentration regions were at the resin tag base and in the region around the etched holes in the enamel. These were perfectly consistent with morphological observations in a parallel in vitro bracket detachment experiment. The critical de-bonding forces damaging the enamel for the square base were lower than those of the triangular base for all detached forces. This study establishes that FE sub-modeling can be used to simulate the stress pattern at the micro-scale enamel/adhesive interface, suggesting that a square base bracket might be better than a triangular bracket. A de-bonding shear force can detach a bracket more easily than any other force with a lower risk of enamel loss.

Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of one-step polishers on the surface morphology of enamel using scanning electron microscope (SEM) and compare their effects with conventional systems for residual adhesive removal; and (2) the time spent to remove resin remnants.

Material and Methods:

Metal brackets were bonded to the buccal surface of 80 freshly extracted human premolar teeth and received the same resin-removal methods to evaluate the time spent to remove resin remnants (n=10). The brackets were debonded and residual adhesive was removed using different systems. Fourty-five premolars, including the control group with intact enamel (n=5), were examined by SEM.

Results:

30-blade tungsten carbide burs were the least timeconsuming procedure. The best system in SEM study was the PoGo micro-polishers followed by Super-Snap Rainbow system.

Conclusions:

The effect of polishing systems on residual resin removal was dependent on the characteristics of the instruments in each system.