Effect of different debonding techniques on shear bond strength and enamel cracks in simulated clinical set-ups

Dalaie, Kazem; Fatemi, Seyyed Mostafa; Behnaz, Mohammad; Ghaffari, Samin; Hemmatian, Sahar; Soltani, Anahita Dehghani

doi:10.1016/j.ejwf.2019.11.003

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of them is the different positioning of the debonding pliers in the case of the Cannon brackets, where, due to the long gingival tie wing, the pliers were placed obliquely. Dalaile et al [ 13 ] found that oblique placement of the debonding pliers resulted in smaller ARI scores compared to occluso-gingival method, which is consistent with the results of our study. On the other hand, Delaile et al applied different force systems (squeezing when pliers were placed obliquely and peeling off when pliers were positioned occluso-gingivally) and the exact comparison between these two studies is not accurate.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Although different ultrasonic and electrothermal debonding methods have been proposed to optimize the process of bracket removal [ 7 , 12 ], the most popular techniques used in everyday practice, due to availability and affordability, are mechanical debonding with a lift-off debonding instrument (LODI, ® 3M Unitek, St. Paul, MN, USA), with bracket removal pliers, or with Weingart pliers. These instruments exert different types of forces (shear force and tension force) on different parts of the bracket (base or wings) and can potentially cause various deformations of the bracket structure, which can lead to bond failure on four different levels: the bracket–adhesive interface, within the adhesive, the adhesive–enamel interface, and within the enamel [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safe Debonding of Fixed Appliances: A Comparison of Traditional Techniques and LODI Devices on Different Bracket Types in Terms of Enamel Cracks, Site of Bond Failure, and Bracket Reusability

Gibas-Stanek

Pihut

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of the debonding of three different bracket types by means of three popular debonding methods. A total of 180 human third molars was divided into six groups, consisting of 20 teeth each. Three bracket types were bonded to the enamel (metal brackets with an integral base and a foil mesh base, and ceramic brackets) and three methods of bracket debonding were employed (bracket removal pliers, Weingart pliers, and Lift-Off Debonding Instrument). The samples were examined with scanning electron microscopy to assess the number of enamel cracks, measure the area of adhesive remaining on the enamel, and calculate the adhesive remnant index (ARI). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of the number of enamel cracks after bracket debonding. The amount of adhesive remaining on the teeth after the brackets were removed was significantly different between the groups. LODI and Weingart pliers are considered to be the safest methods of debonding brackets with an integral base, while LODI is the best tool for brackets with foil mesh. Bracket removal pliers are considered to be the preferred method for ceramic bracket debonding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe Debonding of Fixed Appliances: A Comparison of Traditional Techniques and LODI Devices on Different Bracket Types in Terms of Enamel Cracks, Site of Bond Failure, and Bracket Reusability

Gibas-Stanek

Pihut

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A relatively common problem that can occur during orthodontic treatment is detachment of the brackets, resulting from, among other things, occlusal forces, mistakes made during bonding of brackets, and structure of the enamel that does not respond to etching [ 16 ]. Information on the strength of specific bonding materials is vital for choosing the right adhesive, especially because an adhesive bond that is too strong can cause detachment of enamel prisms during bracket removal [ 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Onto the Tooth Enamel of 120 Freshly Extracted Adult Bovine Medial Lower Incisors Using 4 Adhesives: A Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Adhesive, a Composite Adhesive, a Liquid Composite Adhesive, and a One-Step Light-Cured Adhesive

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to compare the bond strength of orthodontic brackets onto the tooth enamel of 120 freshly extracted adult bovine medial lower incisors using 4 adhesives: a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive, a composite adhesive, a liquid composite adhesive, and a one-step light-cured adhesive. Material/Methods The study group (120 freshly extracted bovine medial lower incisors) was divided into equal subgroups depending on the type of adhesive used to fix the brackets to the tooth enamel (n=30), and then according to the observation time (n=10). Orthodontic brackets were fixed onto the tooth enamel for 24 hours (T1), 3 months (T2), and 6 months (T3) using 4 types of adhesives: resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive Fuji Ortho LC, composite adhesive Transbond Plus Light Cure Band, flowable composite adhesive Transbond Supreme Low Viscosity, and a one-step light-cured adhesive GC Ortho Connect. Shear tests and fracture plane analyses were performed. Results Statistically significant differences at time T1 were noted in the comparison of shear stress values when brackets were fixed with GC Ortho Connect adhesive compared to other adhesives ( P <0.05), except for the Transbond Plus adhesive ( P >0.05). At time T3, significant statistical differences occurred between GC Fuji Ortho LC and the other 3 adhesives ( P <0.05). The fracture analysis showed that, regardless of the time function, adhesive-cohesive fractures without damage to the enamel were the most common for all the assessed materials. Conclusions Of the adhesives evaluated, GC Ortho Connect appears to be the most appropriate choice for bonding orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface.

show abstract

“…All authors using bracket debonding pliers as a debonding method observed changes in the morphology of the enamel. In Dalaie et al study, mean increase in enamel cracks length after debonding was 2.39 mm [13]. Additionally, there was no relationship between shear bond strength and crack length change.…”

Section: Not Testedmentioning

confidence: 88%

What is the safest method of orthodontic debonding- a systematic review of the literature

Gibas-Stanek,

Pełka,

Pihut

2023

Folia Medica Cracoviensia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to review the current knowledge based on in vitro and in vivo studies, that evaluated the enamel damage connected with removal of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets taking into account different debonding methods. Brackets fracture was also assessed. The protocol for this study was constructed according to the PRISMA statement. The literature review was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases in May 2021. The searching was repeated in Journal of Stomatology, Orthodontic Forum and grey literature was screened using Google Scholar. Out of eligible studies 207 were screened by title and abstract, 85 subjected to full-text analysis and 30 were qualified for the research. The prevalence of enamel fracture ranged from 0 to 94.4%. The results of our review do not allow to identify the manual method of debonding that minimizes the risk of enamel damage. Thermal method and laser irradiation reduce the risk of enamel fracture.

show abstract

Effect of different debonding techniques on shear bond strength and enamel cracks in simulated clinical set-ups

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Safe Debonding of Fixed Appliances: A Comparison of Traditional Techniques and LODI Devices on Different Bracket Types in Terms of Enamel Cracks, Site of Bond Failure, and Bracket Reusability

Safe Debonding of Fixed Appliances: A Comparison of Traditional Techniques and LODI Devices on Different Bracket Types in Terms of Enamel Cracks, Site of Bond Failure, and Bracket Reusability

Comparison of Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Onto the Tooth Enamel of 120 Freshly Extracted Adult Bovine Medial Lower Incisors Using 4 Adhesives: A Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Adhesive, a Composite Adhesive, a Liquid Composite Adhesive, and a One-Step Light-Cured Adhesive

What is the safest method of orthodontic debonding- a systematic review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About