Effects of different debonding techniques on the debonding forces and failure modes of ceramic brackets in simulated clinical set-ups

Chen, Hsing-Yu; Su, Ming-Zen; Chang, Hao-Hueng; Chen, Yi-Jane; Lan, Won-Hong; Lin, Chang‐Ching

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.035

Cited by 28 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The bracket design incorporates a vertical debonding slot that concentrates stresses at the base of the bracket so that it fractures along the vertical slot. 25 We found that most of the polycrystalline ceramic brackets (65%) fractured into two fragments. However, 6 of the 17 polycrystalline ceramic brackets (35%) fractured in four or more pieces, with four (24%) leaving fragments of the brackets bonded to the teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…This contradicts another study in which the polycrystalline ceramic brackets fractured less often than the monocrystalline ceramic brackets. 25 It is well documented that as the debonding forces increase, so does the frequency of enamel cracks and bracket fracture. 5,8,26 The monocrystalline ceramic bracket system required a lower debonding force, 26 which supports our finding of less enamel loss and fewer bracket fragments with this system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro

Suliman

Trojan

Tantbirojn

et al. 2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To measure enamel surface changes after ceramic bracket debonding and after cleanup. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted teeth were scanned in three dimensions using an optical scanner (baseline). Two ceramic bracket systems were placed (19 metal-reinforced polycrystalline ceramic brackets; 21 monocrystalline ceramic brackets). Seven days later, brackets were debonded and teeth scanned (post-debond). Adhesive remnants and bracket fragments were recorded. Tooth surfaces were cleaned using a finishing carbide bur and scanned again (post-cleanup). Post-debond and post-cleanup scans were aligned with the baseline, and surface changes were quantified. Results were statistically compared using t-tests and Mann-Whitney tests (a 5 .05). Results: The depth of enamel loss (mean 6 standard deviation) post-debond was 21 6 8 mm and 33 mm and post-cleanup was 28 6 14 mm and 18 6 8 mm (P 5 .0191); the post-debond remnant thickness was 188 6 113 mm and 120 6 37 mm (P 5 .2381) and post-cleanup was 16 6 5 mm and 15 mm for polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, respectively. The monocrystalline ceramic brackets predominantly left all adhesive on the tooth; the polycrystalline ceramic brackets were more likely to leave bracket fragments attached. Conclusion: Both systems allowed successful removal of the brackets with minimal enamel loss. However, the polycrystalline ceramic brackets left more fragments on the tooth, which complicated cleanup efforts. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:651-656.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro

Suliman

Trojan

Tantbirojn

et al. 2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3,12 Many attempts have been made to assess enamel damage after bracket removal. 8,[12][13][14][15][16] Several investigations have taken a deeper view to evaluating various EMC characteristics. 5,9,[17][18][19] However, there are no reports on a consistent examination of the effect of debonding teeth having visible EMCs.…”

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

“…4,13 De-bonding of ceramic brackets can be done by Weingarts pliers; tips of the pliers positioned over mesio-distal sides of the wire slot and gentle squeezing induced fracture in center of the slot. It is necessary to gently rock the bracket towards the side that de-bonded first to fully de-bond it; this technique was simple, convenient and can be quickly executed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They have low fracture toughness than metal bracket and are more likely to shatter during de-bonding. 7 The characterization of enamel surface after debonding are done by examination of teeth under 10 X or 16 X magnification, 8 using disclosing medium, 6 polarized digital imaging, 9 optical stereomicroscope, 10 3D laser scanning, 11,12 scanning electron microscopy, 3,13,14 SEM microphotographs, 15 3D surface profilometry 16 and transillumination. 17 Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) is a well established technique that gives high resolution, ultrafast, non-invasive and cross-sectional tomographic imaging of tissue micro-structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of enamel surface changes by different enamel conditioners and de-bonding procedure using optical coherence tomography: An in-vitro qualitative study

2020

IJODR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to evaluate surface changes of enamel after using different enamel conditioning agents and bonding adhesives after de-bonding and clean-up of metal and ceramic brackets using optical coherence tomography. Method: Metal and ceramic brackets were bonded onto 120 pre-molars, divided into 4 groups [n=30] which were de-bonded after 24 hours. Enamel conditioners, bonding agents and adhesive resins of four different brands were used in each group. The images of enamel surface were captured with Optical Coherence Tomography [OCT] machine; pre-treatment (T0), post-etching (T1), after bracket de-bonding (T2) and post-cleanup (T3). A spectral domain optical coherence tomography system with 5μm axial spatial resolution was used. This was connected to a pre-configured computer system. A total of 480 images were evaluated for enamel surface evaluation. Results: OCT images obtained allowed us to evaluate the enamel surface after acid-etching and post de-bonding and clean-up procedures. 2D OCT analysis allowed in-depth analysis of enamel loss after various procedures. OCT also assisted in locating remnant adhesive layer after clean-up. Conclusion: OCT is a powerful clinical tool for the use in dentistry and can be used effectively to evaluate enamel surface loss after various procedures.

show abstract

Effects of different debonding techniques on the debonding forces and failure modes of ceramic brackets in simulated clinical set-ups

Cited by 28 publications

References 15 publications

Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro

Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro

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

Evaluation of enamel surface changes by different enamel conditioners and de-bonding procedure using optical coherence tomography: An in-vitro qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About