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

Eichenberger, Martina; Iliadi, Anna; Koletsi, Despina; Εliades, George; Verna, Carlalberta; Eliades, Theodore

doi:10.3390/ma12244196

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The debonding procedure is simplified with the possibility to visualize composites remnants during their removal; the damage risks for lingual bracket debonding described in literature are minimized (Figure 6). 8 …”

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this technique is useful for composite and resin removal in visible areas such as the buccal surfaces, it becomes even more effective in the less accessible lingual areas. The lingual bracket debonding under natural or dental operating light can cause a significant increase of the enamel roughness 8 . The lingual surfaces have a greater interindividual morphological variability than the buccal surfaces; therefore, distinguishing enamel and resins of similar color is even more complex.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fluorescence‐aided composite removal during lingual bracket debonding

Albertini

Lombardo

2020

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This report describes the fluorescence-aided composite removal during lingual bracket debonding with an ultraviolet light emitting diode flashlight. The purpose of this technique is to help clinicians in composite removal without enamel surface damage. Clinical considerations: The bracket debonding requires clinical attention in order to remove all composites and resins without enamel surface damage. Different protocols can be used in order to minimize the enamel damages and the excess bonding remnants. The fluorescence-aided composite removal permits to have an immediate visualization of the composites and adhesives, especially for the uneven lingual surfaces, of which the interindividual morphological variability is greater than the buccal surfaces. Conclusions: The fluorescence-aided composite removal during lingual brackets debonding minimizes the risks described in literature and it is an easier, more accurate, reliable, noninvasive, inexpensive, and time-saving method. Clinical significance: The application of this technique allows, with inexpensive flashlights, to remove all the composite on the lingual surfaces during debonding, without damaging the tooth and saving time.

show abstract

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluorescence‐aided composite removal during lingual bracket debonding

Albertini

Lombardo

2020

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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]. Eichenberger et al reported 0.20 µm of enamel removed after cement polishing of the lingual multibracket appliance therapy [30], and Janiszewska-Olszowska et al reported 13.70 µm of enamel removed after cement polishing of the buccal multibracket appliance therapy with a tungsten carbide bur [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…There is no gold standard on how to remove composite remnants after bracket debonding, but the tungsten carbide bur remains the most preferred tool [ 7 , 8 ]. The clean-up with the tungsten carbide bur is fast and effective, but results in an increased enamel roughness, which requires subsequent multistep polishing [ 7 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique (FIT) Improves Tooth Surface Clean-Up after Debonding of Buccal and Lingual Orthodontic Appliances

Engeler

Stadler

Horn

et al. 2021

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of fluorescence inducing light to aid the clean-up of tooth surfaces after bracket removal when using buccal or lingual orthodontic appliances. Two full sets of dental arches using extracted human teeth were assembled, with 14 teeth per arch. All teeth were bonded on their buccal and lingual surfaces. After debonding, a single blinded operator performed the tooth surface clean-up, as commonly performed in clinical practice; without the use of fluorescent light (non-FIT) and with two methods using fluorescent light to identify composite remnants on the tooth surfaces (FIT; OPAL and BRACE). Tooth surfaces were scanned before bonding and after clean-up, and the two scans were superimposed using the best-fit method. The results showed that the debonding method, type of tooth and type of tooth surface had a significant effect on the presence of composite remnants, enamel defects, and on debonding time. Contrary to the non-FIT method, there were no composite remnants after clean-up with the use of fluorescence inducing light. Clean-up time was significantly reduced on the buccal surfaces when using the FIT methods. On the lingual surfaces, the FIT methods resulted in larger enamel defects.

show abstract

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

Cited by 10 publications

References 25 publications

Fluorescence‐aided composite removal during lingual bracket debonding

Fluorescence‐aided composite removal during lingual bracket debonding

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

Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique (FIT) Improves Tooth Surface Clean-Up after Debonding of Buccal and Lingual Orthodontic Appliances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About