AIM: To test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the reusability of debonded brackets with regard to debonding technique and adhesive used. METHOD: Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n = 48) for bonding of a 0.018-inch bracket (Ormesh, Ormco) with either a composite adhesive (Mono-Lok2; RMO) or a glass ionomer cement (GIC; Fuji Ortho LC;GC). Each of these two groups were then randomly divided into four subgroups (n = 12) according to the method of debonding using (1) bracket removal pliers (BRP; Dentaurum), (2) a side cutter (SC; Dentaurum), (3) a lift-off debracketing instrument (LODI; 3M-Unitek), or (4) an air pressure pulse device (CoronaFlex; KaVo). The brackets were subsequently assessed visually for reusability and reworkability with 2x magnification and by pull testing with a 0.017- x 0.025-inch steel archwire. The proportions of reusable brackets were individually compared in terms of mode of removal and with regard to adhesives using the Fisher exact test (alpha = 5%). RESULTS: The null hypothesis was rejected. Not taking into account the debonding method, brackets bonded with GIC were judged to a significant extent (81%; n = 39; P < .01) to be reworkable compared with those bonded with composite (56%; n = 27). All brackets in both adhesive groups removed with either the LODI or the CoronaFlex were found to be reusable, whereas 79% (46%) of the brackets removed with the BRP (SC) were not. The proportion of reusable brackets differed significantly between modes of removal (P < .01). CONCLUSION: With regard to bracket reusability, the SC and the BRP cannot be recommended for debonding brackets, especially in combination with a composite adhesive.
AIM: To test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the reusability of debonded brackets with regard to debonding technique and adhesive used. METHOD: Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n = 48) for bonding of a 0.018-inch bracket (Ormesh, Ormco) with either a composite adhesive (Mono-Lok2; RMO) or a glass ionomer cement (GIC; Fuji Ortho LC;GC). Each of these two groups were then randomly divided into four subgroups (n = 12) according to the method of debonding using (1) bracket removal pliers (BRP; Dentaurum), (2) a side cutter (SC; Dentaurum), (3) a lift-off debracketing instrument (LODI; 3M-Unitek), or (4) an air pressure pulse device (CoronaFlex; KaVo). The brackets were subsequently assessed visually for reusability and reworkability with 2x magnification and by pull testing with a 0.017- x 0.025-inch steel archwire. The proportions of reusable brackets were individually compared in terms of mode of removal and with regard to adhesives using the Fisher exact test (alpha = 5%). RESULTS: The null hypothesis was rejected. Not taking into account the debonding method, brackets bonded with GIC were judged to a significant extent (81%; n = 39; P < .01) to be reworkable compared with those bonded with composite (56%; n = 27). All brackets in both adhesive groups removed with either the LODI or the CoronaFlex were found to be reusable, whereas 79% (46%) of the brackets removed with the BRP (SC) were not. The proportion of reusable brackets differed significantly between modes of removal (P < .01). CONCLUSION: With regard to bracket reusability, the SC and the BRP cannot be recommended for debonding brackets, especially in combination with a composite adhesive.
Authors: Rudolfo M Valente; Waldemar G De Rijk; James L Drummond; Carla A Evans Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 2.650