<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec>
<h3>Background</h3>
<p>Enamel cracks, which may develop during debonding orthodontic brackets, may jeopardise the integrity of the enamel and detract from the appearance of the teeth.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Aim</h3>
<p>To compare the adhesive remnant scores (ARI), the number, lengths and directions of enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding metal orthodontic brackets with three different methods.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Methods</h3>
<p>Metal brackets were bonded with a self-curing orthodontic adhesive to the buccal surfaces of 75 recently extracted upper and lower premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups, and the brackets removed either with a sidecutter, a single-blade bracket remover or a two-blade bracket remover. The number, directions and lengths of the enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding were compared. The number of ‘pronounced’ cracks (i.e. cracks that could be identified with the naked eye) and the ARI scores in each group were also compared.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>After debonding, the number of enamel cracks and pronounced cracks, and the lengths of the enamel cracks increased in all groups (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. The ARI scores and the direction of propagation of the enamel cracks were not influenced by the debonding method used (<italic>p</italic> = 0.73).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<p>Concerns about the enamel damage caused by the three methods of debonding justify caution. Despite widespread use of these methods, it would be sensible to search for methods that result in less enamel damage.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Background
Enamel cracks, which may develop during debonding orthodontic brackets, may jeopardise the integrity of the enamel and detract from the appearance of the teeth.


Aim
To compare the adhesive remnant scores (ARI), the number, lengths and directions of enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding metal orthodontic brackets with three different methods.


Methods
Metal brackets were bonded with a self-curing orthodontic adhesive to the buccal surfaces of 75 recently extracted upper and lower premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups, and the brackets removed either with a sidecutter, a single-blade bracket remover or a two-blade bracket remover. The number, directions and lengths of the enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding were compared. The number of ‘pronounced’ cracks (i.e. cracks that could be identified with the naked eye) and the ARI scores in each group were also compared.


Results
After debonding, the number of enamel cracks and pronounced cracks, and the lengths of the enamel cracks increased in all groups (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. The ARI scores and the direction of propagation of the enamel cracks were not influenced by the debonding method used (p = 0.73).


Conclusions
Concerns about the enamel damage caused by the three methods of debonding justify caution. Despite widespread use of these methods, it would be sensible to search for methods that result in less enamel damage.

The effects of bracket removal on enamel

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"The effects of bracket removal on enamel"}

Background
Enamel cracks, which may develop during debonding orthodontic brackets, may jeopardise the integrity of the enamel and detract from the appearance...

The effects of bracket removal on enamel

Pubblicato online: 13 dic 2023

Pagine: 110 - 115

Ricevuto: 01 mar 2008

Accettato: 01 ago 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2008-0016

© 2008 Farzin Heravi et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.