Background and Objective. The primary responsibility of an orthodontist is to preserve the dental enamel structure during debonding ceramic brackets. The enamel injury caused at the time of bracket removal causes inconvenience to the patient and disturbs the treating orthodontist. This paper aims for an effective evidence-based debonding protocol to keep the enamel surface intact. 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 (US) technique led to more significant enamel surface damage, with 13 (65%) samples in the ESI scores III and IV against the satisfactory surface in 2 (10%) samples with the ligature cutter (LC) technique (ESI-I) reflecting LC as a better technique. The ESI scores (III and IV) for debonding plier (DP) and thermal method (TM) reflected a higher value in 12 (60%) and 10 (50%) samples and caused more damage to the enamel surface as compared to the LC technique. The ARI score was highest (ARI-1 = 40%) with the LC technique, followed by the US (ARI-1 = 20%), TM (ARI-1 = 15%), and DP (ARI-1 = 5%) methods. We have observed a significant association ( p value <0.05) of the ARI score among four different debonding ways in terms of each tooth’s residual adhesive after the bracket removal. Conclusion. The result establishes the LC technique as a more acceptable one as it causes minimal harm to the debonded surface. The adhesive left on the debonded area is also minimum as compared to the other three methods tested. Therefore, it can be suggested as an ideal method.
Objective: The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between the nutritional status and the permanent eruption of the third molar teeth aged 13-26 years. Introduction: It is known that chronology of dental development is less variable than the bone development and the method applied for this particular period of life is a reliable indicator of age. Though eruption of teeth may be affected by dietary variation, the eruption time for teeth are fairly constant. Materials and methods: It is a cross-sectional prospective study conducted among the people aged 13-26 years through a, questionnaire over 100 participants. Results: A total of 51% male and 49% female were participated in this study. Out of 25 participants of complete third molar eruption, majority 52% (13) participants were belonging to female. In this study, the percentage of complete third molar eruption among the participants with different Body Mass Index (BMI) categories like underweight, normal and overweight were 7, 16 and 2 respectively. Conclusion: These findings suggest a relationship between nutritional status with eruption of third permanent molars. As the complete eruption of third molar is less with underweight and obese individuals, initiatives should be undertaken for health promotion among the common people regarding oral health and healthy eating.
Background and Objectives. The debonding procedures of brackets in orthodontics cause a different amount of time loss and enamel damage. The current research assesses and equates the time consumption for bracket debonding using four different techniques. Materials and Methods. A total of 80 human premolars were included in this study. The samples were first arranged following a standard protocol for bracketing and then debonded using the ultrasonic scaler (US), debonding plier (DP), ligature cutter (LC), and thermal method (TM). Depending on the technique applied for debonding, the specimens were randomly divided into four groups with 20 samples, each keeping a 1 : 1 ratio. During the debonding process, the time taken for each bracket removal was recorded using a stopwatch. To assess the difference in mean time required for debonding among the four techniques, one-way ANOVA test was applied along with Tukey’s HSD to compare the two methods. Results. The time range and the mean time required for the four techniques analyzed show that the DP method has the highest range of time needed for debonding with 0.97–2.56 seconds, while LC methods have the least time range taking 0.46 to 1.79 seconds. TM’s mean time to debond is the highest at 1.5880 seconds. LC method has the lowest mean debonding time of 0.9880 seconds. The one-way ANOVA test has shown the mean debonding time required by the four techniques to be significantly different ( p < 0.001 ). Tukey’s HSD multiple comparisons also show that the mean time to debond using the LC method is substantially less than the other three methods ( p < 0.001 ). Conclusion. The mean debonding time for the TM was substantially the highest, followed by the US and DP. Debonding with the LC technique required the least time. This study shows some limelight towards the effectiveness of the LC method as it is the least time-consuming technique.
Clefts of the lip and palate unfortunately are by far the most common major facial malformations in mankind. Fortunately, as a result of technical advancements in the fields of medicine and their families for treatment, much can be done and achieved for them. The orthodontist by virtue of having gained in depth knowledge of the craniofacial complex, its growth and development and expertise in tooth movement has to play a role of prime importance in making critical decisions, planning treatment and rendering care to these patients. Nasoalveolar Molding (NAM) is a tissue-expansion procedure performed by dentists prior to a surgical repair for cleft lip and palate. 1 The NAM technique allows the paediatric dentist and surgeon to mold the abnormallyformed nasal cartilage into a more optimal relationship prior to surgery. 2 The carefully-controlled tissue expansion created by the NAM allows for the creation of a more normalappearing nose at the time of surgery for the lip closure than compared to traditional treatment by secondary alveolar bone grafting. Creating a symmetrical nose from the deficient columella and deformed nasal cartilage in cleft patients is a great challenge. The lower lateral alar cartilage in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate is depressed and concave in the alar rim. It separates from the non-cleft-side lateral alar cartilage resulting in depression and displacement of the nasal tip. The columella is shorter on the cleft side and is inclined over the cleft with the base deviated toward the non-cleft side. Presurgical nasal molding also has been introduced as an adjunctive neonatal management for preoperative correction of nasal deformities by utilising the malleability of alar cartilage shortly after birth. Grayson et al proposed the combination of presurgical orthopaedics and nasal molding as a new technique called presurgical nasoalveolar molding for approximating the alveolar cleft and improving the nasal deformities preoperatively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.