Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Post-graduate student, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences

2 Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences

3 Private practitioner, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Debonding of orthodontic metal bracket is a routine part of fixed orthodontic treatment.
 The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the direction of enamel cracks before and after debonding the metal orthodontic brackets in five different techniques.
Methods: Two hundred extracted human premolars were randomly divided into five groups in this in vitro study. Metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) light-cured adhesive. Then the brackets were removed with one of these methods: ultrasonic scaler, ligature cutter plier, bracket removal plier, how plier, crown remover. Direction of the enamel cracks were examined by stereomicroscope and compared. Statistical analysis was done with Paired t-test and Chi-squared test. P < 0.05 was considered as significant.
Results: After debonding, mixed type had the highest frequency (80.9 %) and no specimens were observed with horizontal crack. There was no significant change in the pattern of directions in before-after comparison (p=0.007. Mixed pattern was less common in ultrasonic group compared to crown remover and ligature cutter groups (p=0.007 and 0.035 respectively).
Conclusion: All of the five debonding methods in the current study had no significant change on the microcrack patterns and there were no horizontal cracks after debonding. Ultrasonic device had the least number of mixed cracks after debonding.

Keywords

  1. Alzainal AH, Majud AS, Al-Ani AM, Mageet AO. Orthodontic Bonding: Review of the Literature. Int J Dent. 2020 Jul 14;2020:8874909. doi: 10.1155/2020/8874909. PMID: 32733564; PMCID: PMC7376407.
  2. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T, Zachrisson YO. Improving orthodontic bonding to silver amalgam. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(1):35-42. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0035:IOBTSA>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 7726460.
  3. Fejerskov O, Nyvad B, Kidd EAM. Dental Caries: The Disease and its Clinical Management. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
  4. Shayan AM, Behroozian A, Sadrhaghighi A, Dolatabadi A, Hashemzadeh S. Effect of different types of acid-etching agents and adhesives on enamel discoloration during orthodontic treatment. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2021 Winter;15(1):7-10. doi: 10.34172/joddd.2021.002. Epub 2021 Feb 13. PMID: 33927834; PMCID: PMC8058157.
  5. Baik UB, Kim H, Chae HS, Myung J, Chun Y. Teeth discoloration during orthodontic  treatment. Korean J Orthod 2017;47(5):334-339. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.5.334. Epub 2017 Jul 27. PMID: 28861395; PMCID: PMC5548714.
  6. Baherimoghadam T, Akbarian S, Rasouli R, Naseri N. Evaluation of enamel damages following orthodontic bracket debonding in fluorosed teeth bonded with adhesion promoter. Eur J Dent 2016;10(2):193–8. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.178296. PMID: 27095895; PMCID: PMC4813434
  7. Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Laffoon J, Warren J. Effects of modifying the adhesive composition on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2002 Oct;72(5):464-7. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0464:EOMTAC>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 12401056.
  8. Toledano M, Osorio R, Osorio E, Romeo A, de la Higuera B, García-Godoy F. Bond strength of orthodontic brackets using different light and self-curing cements. Angle Orthod. 2003 Feb;73(1):56-63. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0056:BSOOBU>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 12607856.
  9. Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Sep;108(3):284-93. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70023-4. PMID: 7661146.
  10. Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod 2011;140(5):696–702.doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.02.027. PMID: 22051490
  11. Oliver RG. The effect of different methods of bracket removal on the amount of residual adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Mar;93(3):196-200. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(88)80003-9. PMID: 2964197.
  12. Dumbryte I, Linkeviciene L, Malinauskas M, Linkevicius T, Peciuliene V, Tikuisis K. Evaluation of enamel micro-cracks characteristics after removal of metal brackets in adult patients. Eur J Orthod. 2013 Jun;35(3):317-22. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr137. Epub 2011 Nov 25. PMID: 22120901.
  13. Chen HY, Su MZ, Chang HF, Chen YJ, Lan WH, Lin CP. Effects of different debonding techniques on the debonding forces and failure modes of ceramic brackets in simulated clinical set-ups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Nov;132(5):680-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.035. PMID: 18005844.

14- Baherimoghadam T, Akbarian S, Rasouli R, Naseri N. Evaluation of enamel damages following orthodontic bracket debonding in fluorosed teeth bonded with adhesion promoter. Eur J Dent. 2016 Apr-Jun;10(2):193-198. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.178296. PMID: 27095895; PMCID: PMC4813434.

  1. Pignatta LMB, Duarte Júnior S, Santos ECA. Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing. Dental Press J orthod. 2012; 17:77-84.

16- Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. Quality of life and its importance in orthodontics. J Orthod. 2001 Jun;28(2):152-8. doi: 10.1093/ortho/28.2.152. PMID: 11395531.

  1. Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(3):333-8.  doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.3.333. PMID: 15222720.
  2. Pithon MM, Santos Fonseca Figueiredo D, Oliveira DD, Coqueiro Rda S. What is the best method for debonding metallic brackets from the patient's perspective? Prog Orthod. 2015;16:17. doi: 10.1186/s40510-015-0088-7. Epub 2015 Jun 17. PMID: 26081783; PMCID: PMC4469684.
  3. Dumbryte I, Linkeviciene L, Malinauskas M, Linkevicius T. Enamel microcracks in terms of orthodontic treatment: A novel method for their detection and evaluation. Dent Mater J 2017; 36(4): 438–446. doi:10.4012/dmj.2016-264 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2016-264.
  4. Salehi P, Pakshir H, Naseri N, Baherimoghaddam T. The effects of composite resin types and debonding pliers on the amount of adhesive remnants and enamel damages: a stereomicroscopic evaluation. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2013 Fall;7(4):199-205. doi: 10.5681/joddd.2013.032. Epub 2013 Dec 18. PMID: 24578817; PMCID: PMC3935550..
  5. Owens SE Jr, Miller BH. A comparison of shear bond strengths of three visible light-cured orthodontic adhesives. Angle Orthod. 2000 Oct;70(5):352-6. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0352:ACOSBS>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 11036994.
  6. Heravi F, Rashed R, Raziee L. The effects of bracket removal on enamel. Aust Orthod J. 2008 Nov;24(2):110-5. PMID: 19113075.
  7. Zachrisson BU, Skogan O, Höymyhr S. Enamel cracks in debonded, debanded, and orthodontically untreated teeth. Am J Orthod. 1980 Mar;77(3):307-19. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90084-6. PMID: 6987879.
  8. Yeom J, Rhee B. The increase of enamel crack in debonding teeth. Korean J Orthod. 1987;17(1):85-91.
  9. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, Lacefield W. Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod 2001;71(2):141–8. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2001)071<0141:OIVBSC>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 11302591.
  10. Hajrassie MK, Khier SE. In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131(3):384–90. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.025. PMID: 17346595.
  11. Knosel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Sadat-Khonsari R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O, et al. Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. Angle Orthod . 2010; 80(6):1036-44. doi: 10.2319/033110-48.1. PMID: 20677952.
  12. Khan H, Chaudhrt AR, Ahmd F. Comparison of site of bond failue between two different pliers. Pak Oral Dental J. 2015; 35(2):228-30.
  13. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, et al. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:25–32. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq128. PMID: 21228118.
  14. Ferreira FG, Nouer DF, Silva NP, et al. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1853–1864. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1159-0. PMID: 24327234.