Debonding forces of different pads in a lingual bracket system

Arima, Valter O.; Filho, Mário Vedovello; Valdrighi, Heloísa Cristina; Lucato, Adriana Simoni; Santamaria‐Jr, Milton; Vedovello, Sílvia Amélia Scudeler

doi:10.1590/2177-6709.22.4.034-040.oar

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ARI modified was used to classify the failure modes: score 0 = no resin cement left on the tooth; score 1 = less than half of resin cement left on the tooth; score 2 = more than half of resin cement left on the tooth; score 3 = all resin cement left on the tooth with distinct impression of the bracket base. 19 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After testing, the specimens were examined in an optical microscope (SZH-131, Olympus Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) at 10x magnification, to define the adhesive remnant index (ARI) adhered to the tooth and bracket after bracket debonding. 19 All teeth were analyzed by the same evaluator. The ARI modified was used to classify the failure modes: score 0 = no resin cement left on the tooth; score 1 = less than half of resin cement left on the tooth; score 2 = more than half of resin cement left on the tooth; score 3 = all resin cement left on the tooth with distinct impression of the bracket base.…”

Section: Shear Bond Strength Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of surface treatments on the adhesive properties of metallic brackets on fluorotic enamel

Huilcapi

Vega

Cardenas

et al. 2020

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the pretreatment with sandblasting and deproteinization with NaOCl on bond strength (SBS), in situ conversion degree (CD) of brackets in fluorotic enamel, and enamel etching pattern. Methods: A total of 90 non-carious maxillary premolars were used. The teeth were then assigned to six experimental groups according to: enamel surface (sound and fluorotic enamel); surface treatment (Regular etch with 37% phosphoric acid [RE]; 5.2% sodium hypochlorite + phosphoric acid [NaOCl + RE]; sandblasting + phosphoric acid [sandblasting + RE]). After storage in distilled water (37°C/24h), the specimens were tested at 1 mm/min until failure (SBS). Enamel-resin cement interfaces were evaluated for CD using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The enamel-etching pattern was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope. Data from SBS and in situ CD values were analyzed using ANOVA two-away and Tukey test (α=0.05). The enamel etching pattern was evaluated only qualitatively. Results: For sound enamel, RE showed the highest SBS values, when compared to NaOCl + RE and Sandblasting + RE groups (p< 0.01). Regarding CD, only NaOCl + RE significantly compromised the mean DC, in comparison with other groups (p= 0.002). For fluorotic enamel, the Sandblasting + RE group significantly increased the mean SBS values, in comparison with RE group (p= 0.01) and no significant change was observed for CD (p> 0.52). Conclusions: The application of NaOCl or sandblasting associated to phosphoric acid improved the SBS of the brackets in fluorotic enamel without compromising the CD of the resin cement, with improving of enamel interprismatic conditioning.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Shear Bond Strength Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of surface treatments on the adhesive properties of metallic brackets on fluorotic enamel

Huilcapi

Vega

Cardenas

et al. 2020

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, no statistically significant differences were shown between the debonding forces of extended gold alloy custom base lingual multibracket appliances (69.29 ± 9.59 N) and conventional limited resin custom base lingual multibracket appliances (60.83 ± 10.12 N) [26]. However, resin mesh of lingual multibracket appliances obtained higher ARI scores compared with metallic custom mesh of lingual multibracket appliances [27]. Otherwise, the influence of polishing of cement remnants on the enamel surfaces has also been analyzed, and an increase of enamel roughness in both buccal [28] and lingual multibracket appliances was reported [9]; therefore, the polishing of cement remnants is still a challenge for clinicians [29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Area and Volume of Remaining Cement and Enamel after Removal and Polishing of Buccal or Lingual Multibracket Appliances

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to compare the area and volume of remaining cement after lingual and buccal multibracket appliance debonding. Further, the area and volume of cement remaining and the area and volume of enamel were also analyzed using a morphometric digital measurement technique. Ten buccal and 10 lingual multibracket appliances were cemented in 20 extracted teeth embedded into an epoxy resin model simulating a dental arch. The models were scanned before bonding the lingual and buccal multibracket appliances, after debonding the lingual and buccal multibracket appliances, and after polishing the remaining cement. Afterwards, the standard tessellation language (STL) digital files were aligned, segmented, and realigned by using engineer morphometry software. A comparative analysis was performed using Student’s t test statistical analysis. Lingual appliances showed statistically significantly (p < 0.001) less area (7.07 ± 4.85 mm2) and volume (0.87 ± 1.34 mm3) of remaining cement than the area (21.99 ± 4.18 mm2) and volume (p = 0.002) (3.48 ± 0.96 mm3) of buccal appliances. Moreover, lingual appliances showed statistically significantly (p = 0.001) less area (4.48 ± 3.08 mm2) and volume (0.13 ± 0.15 mm3) of remaining cement after polishing than the area (12.22 ± 5.98 mm2) and volume (p = 0.004) (0.70 ± 0.56 mm3) of buccal appliances. Lingual multibracket appliance therapy leads to less area and volume of cement remaining after multibracket appliance debonding and less area and volume of cement remaining after cement polishing than buccal multibracket appliance therapy; however, the area and volume of enamel removed after cement polishing were similar between both lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies.

show abstract

“…The bonding strength of lingual brackets depends on the design of the bracket base. Due to their larger bases, customized metal bracket have relatively high bond strength values [24]. In the present study, noncustomized 2D brackets were used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enamel Surface Roughness after Lingual Bracket Debonding: An In Vitro Study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to quantitatively assess changes in enamel roughness parameters before and after lingual bracket debonding. The lingual surface of 25 sound premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons was studied by 3D optical interferometric profilometry before and after debonding of lingual brackets following enamel finishing (with fine diamond) and polishing (with 12-and 20-fluted carbide burs). The roughness parameters tested were the amplitude parameters Sa and Sz, the hybrid parameter Sdr, and the functional parameters Sc and Sv. The parameter differences (after debonding-reference) were calculated, and statistical analysis was performed via a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Statistically significantly higher values were observed in all the surface roughness parameters of enamel surfaces after finishing and polishing, with the mostly affected parameter being the Sdr. Under the conditions of the present study, the finishing and polishing instruments used after debonding of lingual noncustomized brackets created a surface texture rougher than the control in all the tested roughness parameters.

show abstract

Debonding forces of different pads in a lingual bracket system

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Effect of surface treatments on the adhesive properties of metallic brackets on fluorotic enamel

Effect of surface treatments on the adhesive properties of metallic brackets on fluorotic enamel

Area and Volume of Remaining Cement and Enamel after Removal and Polishing of Buccal or Lingual Multibracket Appliances

Enamel Surface Roughness after Lingual Bracket Debonding: An In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About