Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets

Sorel, Olivier; Alam, Rafeh El; Chagneau, F.; Cathelineau, Guy

doi:10.1067/mod.2002.125834

Cited by 74 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1,2 As previous studies have shown, EMCs can be noticed after debonding at the end of orthodontic treatment. [3][4][5] While small EMCs may not result in tooth fracture, over prolonged periods their growth can be detrimental as they may serve as sites for demineralization and increase susceptibility to carious lesions. 3,6,7 Nowadays, patients have high esthetic demands and pay more attention to the possible enamel damage that takes the form of EMCs after debonding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prognostic value of visually assessing enamel microcracks: Do debonding and adhesive removal contribute to their increase?

Dumbryte¹,

Jonavičius

Linkevičienė

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To find a correlation between the severity of enamel microcracks (EMCs) and their increase during debonding and residual adhesive removal (RAR). Materials and Methods: Following their examination with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), 90 extracted human premolars were divided into three groups of 30: group 1, teeth having pronounced EMCs (visible with the naked eye under normal room illumination); group 2, teeth showing weak EMCs (not apparent under normal room illumination but visible by SEM); and group 3, a control group. EMCs have been classified into weak and pronounced, based on their visibility. Metal brackets (MB) and ceramic brackets (CB), 15 of each type, were bonded to all the teeth from groups 1 and 2. Debonding was performed with pliers, followed by RAR. The location, length, and width of the longest EMCs were measured using SEM before and after debonding. Results: The mean overall width (W overall ) was higher for pronounced EMCs before and after debonding CB (P , .05), and after the removal of MB. Pronounced EMCs showed greater length values using both types of brackets. After debonding, the increase in W overall of pronounced EMCs was 0.57 mm with MB (P , .05) and 0.30 mm with CB; for weak EMCs, 2 0.32 mm with MB and 0.30 mm with CB. Conclusions: Although the teeth having pronounced EMCs showed higher width and length values, this did not predispose to greater EMCs increase after debonding MB and CB followed by RAR. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:437-447.)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prognostic value of visually assessing enamel microcracks: Do debonding and adhesive removal contribute to their increase?

Dumbryte¹,

Jonavičius

Linkevičienė

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] Nevertheless, damage to the enamel due to debonding has been, and still is, a concern to clinicians because it is reported to occur in vitro [4][5][6] and in vivo. 7,8 During bracket removal, bond failure can occur at the adhesive-enamel or at the adhesive-bracket interface (adhesive failure), or within the adhesive (cohesive failure); generally, a combination of adhesive and cohesive failure (mixed failure) takes place.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

Zanarini

Gracco

Lattuca

et al. 2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 5 818) were selected and analyzed with ImageJ software to measure the remnant area. From this population a statistically significant sample (n 5 100) 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 5 .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 5 .0001, respectively). Conclusion: The objective of an atraumatic debonding is not achieved yet; in some cases the damage could be clinically relevant. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:885-891.)

show abstract

“…Braket tabanlar›nda girintilerin oluflturulmas›, farkl› çapta tellerin a¤ fleklinde lehimlenmesi ve kaidenin lazerle flekillendirilmesi (6), braket kaidesinin metal plazma ile kaplanmas› (7), braket taban›na metal yada seramik partiküllerinin füzyonu (8) gibi di¤er pek çok yaklafl›m yap›flma özel-liklerini art›rmaya yönelik yap›lan giriflimlerin baz›lar›d›r. Ayr›ca Sharma-Sayal ve arkadafllar› (9), Wang ve arkadafllar› (10) ve Baflçiftçi ve arkadafllar›(11) farkl› taban dizaynlar›n›n farkl› ba¤lanma kuvvetlerine sahip oldu¤unu göstermifllerdir.…”

unclassified

İki Kendinden Kilitli Braketin Bağlanma Direncinin Konvansiyonel Bir Braketle Karşılaştırılması

Başaran¹,

Özer²

2009

Turkish Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets

Cited by 74 publications

References 21 publications

The prognostic value of visually assessing enamel microcracks: Do debonding and adhesive removal contribute to their increase?

The prognostic value of visually assessing enamel microcracks: Do debonding and adhesive removal contribute to their increase?

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

İki Kendinden Kilitli Braketin Bağlanma Direncinin Konvansiyonel Bir Braketle Karşılaştırılması

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About