Huib Berghauser Pont1, Mutlu Özcan2, Bora Bagis3, Yijin Ren4. 1. Graduate student, Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Professor, Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: mutluozcan@hotmail.com. 3. Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey. 4. Professor, Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the surface enamel after bracket debonding and residual resin removal. METHODS: Thirty patients (female, 20; male, 10; mean age, 18.4 years) who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (Twin Brackets, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) (n = 525) were included. The amounts of adhesive left on the tooth surfaces and the bracket bases were evaluated with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). ARI(tooth) (n = 498) was assessed on digital photographs by 2 operators. After resin removal and polishing, epoxy replicas were made from the maxillary anterior teeth (n = 62), and enamel surfaces were scored again with the enamel surface index. Elemental analysis was performed on the debonded bracket bases by using energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry mean area scanning analysis. The percentages of calcium and silicon were summed up to 100%. Tooth damage was estimated based on the incidence of calcium from enamel in relation to silicon from adhesive (Ca%) and the correlation between the ARI(bracket) and Ca%. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: While ARI(tooth) results showed score 3 as the most frequent (41%) (P<0.05), followed by scores 0, 1, and 2 (28.7%, 17.9%, and 12.4%, respectively), ARI(bracket) results showed score 0 more often (40.6%) than the other scores (P<0.05). Maxillary anterior teeth had significantly more scores of 3 (49%) than the other groups of teeth (10%-25%) (chi-square; P<0.001). There were no enamel surface index scores of 0, 3, or 4. No correlation between the enamel surface index and ARI(tooth) scores was found (Spearman rho = 0.014, P = 0.91). The incidence of Ca% from the scanned brackets showed significant differences between the maxillary and mandibular teeth (14% ± 8.7% and 11.2% ± 6.5%, respectively; P <0.05), especially for the canines and second premolars (Kruskal-Wallis test, P<0.01). With more remnants on the bracket base, the Ca% was higher (Jonckheere Terpstra test, P<0.05). Iatrogenic damage to the enamel surface after bracket debonding was inevitable. Whether elemental loss from enamel has clinical significance is yet to be determined in a long-term clinical follow-up of the studied patient population.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the surface enamel after bracket debonding and residual resin removal. METHODS: Thirty patients (female, 20; male, 10; mean age, 18.4 years) who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (Twin Brackets, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) (n = 525) were included. The amounts of adhesive left on the tooth surfaces and the bracket bases were evaluated with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). ARI(tooth) (n = 498) was assessed on digital photographs by 2 operators. After resin removal and polishing, epoxy replicas were made from the maxillary anterior teeth (n = 62), and enamel surfaces were scored again with the enamel surface index. Elemental analysis was performed on the debonded bracket bases by using energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry mean area scanning analysis. The percentages of calcium and silicon were summed up to 100%. Tooth damage was estimated based on the incidence of calcium from enamel in relation to silicon from adhesive (Ca%) and the correlation between the ARI(bracket) and Ca%. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: While ARI(tooth) results showed score 3 as the most frequent (41%) (P<0.05), followed by scores 0, 1, and 2 (28.7%, 17.9%, and 12.4%, respectively), ARI(bracket) results showed score 0 more often (40.6%) than the other scores (P<0.05). Maxillary anterior teeth had significantly more scores of 3 (49%) than the other groups of teeth (10%-25%) (chi-square; P<0.001). There were no enamel surface index scores of 0, 3, or 4. No correlation between the enamel surface index and ARI(tooth) scores was found (Spearman rho = 0.014, P = 0.91). The incidence of Ca% from the scanned brackets showed significant differences between the maxillary and mandibular teeth (14% ± 8.7% and 11.2% ± 6.5%, respectively; P <0.05), especially for the canines and second premolars (Kruskal-Wallis test, P<0.01). With more remnants on the bracket base, the Ca% was higher (Jonckheere Terpstra test, P<0.05). Iatrogenic damage to the enamel surface after bracket debonding was inevitable. Whether elemental loss from enamel has clinical significance is yet to be determined in a long-term clinical follow-up of the studied patient population.
Authors: José Tarcísio Lima Ferreira; Maria Cristina Borsatto; Maria Conceição Pereira Saraiva; Mírian Aiko Nakane Matsumoto; Carolina Paes Torres; Fabio Lourenço Romano Journal: Turk J Orthod Date: 2020-03-01
Authors: Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska; Tomasz Szatkiewicz; Robert Tomkowski; Katarzyna Tandecka; Katarzyna Grocholewicz Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2014-10-20
Authors: Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska; Katarzyna Tandecka; Tomasz Szatkiewicz; Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak; Katarzyna Grocholewicz Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 2.151