Document Type : Original Article


1 Orthodontist, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, N.P.D.C.H, Visnagar, India

2 Professor and HOD, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, N.P.D.C.H, Visnagar, India


Aim: The aim of the in vitro study was to examine the enamel surface after the application of four different methods for adhesive removal following the bracket debonding procedure, as well as to compare their effects on enamel surface.
Methods: Premolars (n=60) were randomly assigned to four groups. After initial debonding and recording the shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were assessed. The removal method for each of the four groups was the use of 1) a round bur, 2) rubber wheel bur, 3)12 fluted tungsten carbide bur, and 4) scaler. After that, teeth in all four groups were kept in artificial saliva for one month. After rebonding with a new bracket, again the SBS and ARI scores were measured. Two representative samples from each group were examined under a scanning electron microscope. ……. P-value <0.05 was considered as significant. ANOVA test was used to assess the SBS association within the group. Paired T test was used to assess the SBS between the group. fisher’s exact test was performed to compare ARI index before and after.
Results: There was significant decrease in secondary SBS value in group 1 but significant increase in secondary SBS value in group 3, and a slight decrease in SBS value in group 4. In SEM images, there were composite remnants in all the four groups with fewer remnants in group 2. Enamel surface damage was observed in the SEM image of group 3. ARI scores showed no significant difference.
Conclusion: Adhesive remnant removal efficiency of the round bur and scaler are less. Rubber wheel bur is a good choice of instrument for removal of adhesive remnants from tooth surface as it does not affect the bond strength. Tungsten carbide bur shows good results, as secondary bonding SBS value increased. Significant difference between ARI scores did not exist, indicating a higher number of mixed type failure in all groups.


Main Subjects

  1. Lovius BB, Pender N, Hewage S, O’Dowling I, Tomkins A. A clinical trial of a light activated bonding material over an 18 month period. Br J Orthod 1987;14(1):11– 20. doi: 10.1179/bjo.14.1.11. PMID: 2952162.
  2. Jassem HA, Retief DH, Jamison HC. Tensile and shear strengths of bonded and rebonded orthodontic attachments. Am J Orthod. 1981; 79(6):661–8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(81)90358-4. PMID: 7015869.
  3. Mui B, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV. Optimization of a procedure for rebonding dislodged orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod.1999;69(3):276–81. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0276:OOAPFR> 2.3.CO;2. PMID: 10371435.
  4. Sigilião LCF, Marquezan M, Elias CN, Ruellas AC, Sant'Anna EF. Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(5):78- 85. doi: 10.1590/2177 6709.20.5.078-085.oar. PMID: 26560825.
  5. Mahdavie NN. The Effect of various debonding burs on the enamel surfaces of teeth after debonding metal brackets [tese]. Chicago: University of Illinois; 2012.
  6. Albuquerque GS, Vedovello Filho M, Lucato AS, Boeck EM, Degan V, Kuramae M. Evaluation of enamel roughness after ceramic bracket debonding and clean-up with different methods. Braz J Oral Sci.2010;9(2):81-4.
  7. M. Evaluation of enamel roughness after ceramic bracket debonding and clean-up with different methods. Braz J Oral Sci. 2010;9(2):81-4.
  8. 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;108(3):284-93. doi: 10.1016/s0889- 5406(95)70023-4. PMID: 7661146.
  9. Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(2):103- 10. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065 <0103: ESAOBD>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 7785800.
  10. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, Meerbeek BV, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J of Orthod. 2012;34(1):25- 32. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq128. PMID: 21228118.
  11. Rastelli MCS. Alterações morfológicas e da microdureza do esmalte dentário humano após utilização de pontas Fiberglass [tese]. Florianópolis (SP): Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; 2008.
  12. Tavares SW. Análise in vitro de diferentes métodos da remoção da resina residual no esmalte dentário [tese]. Piracicaba (SP): Universidade Estadual de Campinas; 2006.
  13. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding: comparison of two different burs. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(6):1081-8. doi: 10.2319/012610-55.1. PMID: 20677958.
  14. Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran). 2013;10(1):82-93. PMID: 23724206.
  15. Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinsahin A, Karabulut E. Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(2):314-21. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006) 076[0314:EORMOE]2.0.CO; 2. PMID: 16539561.
  16. Pignatta LMB, Duarte Júnior S, Santos ECA. Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing. Dental Press J Orthod. 2011;17(4): 77-84. doi: 10.1590/S2176-94512012000400017.
  17. Zachrisson BU, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1979;75(2):121-7. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181- 7. PMID: 369382.
  18. Van Waes H, Matter T, Krejci I. Three- dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112(6):666–9. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70232-4. PMID: 9423699.
  19. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a selfetching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(6):717–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003. 10.032. PMID: 15592221.
  20. Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995;65(2): 103– 10.
  21. Eliades T, Brantley WA. The inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(1):13– 23. doi: 10.1093/ejo/22.1.13. PMID: 10721241.