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

Abstract

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.

Orthodontic Bracket Removal Using LASER-Technology—A Short Systematic Literature Review of the Past 30 Years

“…When the active orthodontic treatment is finished, the brackets used are de-bonded and all adhesive remnants should also be removed since residual adhesive favors the accumulation of dental plaque and might also lead to discoloration [2]. As demonstrated by numerous studies, no mechanical technique available to the practitioners allows debonding without any damage whatsoever to the enamel surface [3]. Also, the mechanical debonding procedures can cause pain and discomfort for the patients [4].…”

Laser Er:YAG-Assisted Debonding May Be a Viable Alternative to the Conventional Method for Monocrystalline Ceramic Brackets

“…For the debonding of monocrystalline ceramic brackets, special pliers are used, which allow the development of sufficiently large tensile forces to break the adhesion between the bracket and the enamel surface. Side effects such as enamel damage and bracket fracture have been reported frequently after conventional ceramic bracket debonding, depending on the tooth being acted upon [ 13 ]. Additionally, the classic method of debonding is associated with painful sensitivity and a thermal effect on the tooth [ 14 , 15 ]; both effects can influence the vascular–nervous package of the tooth, especially the pulpal blood dynamics.…”