INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this in-vivo study were to compare the modes of failure of uncoated and adhesive precoated metal brackets by using the adhesive remnant index, and to assess the quality of the enamel surface after cleanup by using the enamel damage index. METHODS:Twelve Victory brackets (group A) and 12 Victory adhesive precoated brackets (group B) (both, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded onto the maxillary second premolars of 12 volunteers. The uncoated brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive resin (3M Unitek). Replicas of the teeth were made before bonding (T0), after bracket removal (T1), and after cleanup (T2). Scanning electron microscope images of all labial enamel surfaces were taken at T0, T1, and T2, and these were evaluated according to the adhesive remnant index and the enamel damage index. RESULTS: Evaluation of the adhesive remnant index scores with the chi-square test showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. Evaluation of the enamel damage index grades with the sign test for paired samples showed a statistically significant difference (P <0.01) between T0 and T2. CONCLUSIONS: Uncoated and precoated brackets exhibited similar debonding patterns. Additionally, the debonding method tested in this study did not restore the original enamel surface, although there was no clinically relevant enamel damage.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this in-vivo study were to compare the modes of failure of uncoated and adhesive precoated metal brackets by using the adhesive remnant index, and to assess the quality of the enamel surface after cleanup by using the enamel damage index. METHODS: Twelve Victory brackets (group A) and 12 Victory adhesive precoated brackets (group B) (both, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded onto the maxillary second premolars of 12 volunteers. The uncoated brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive resin (3M Unitek). Replicas of the teeth were made before bonding (T0), after bracket removal (T1), and after cleanup (T2). Scanning electron microscope images of all labial enamel surfaces were taken at T0, T1, and T2, and these were evaluated according to the adhesive remnant index and the enamel damage index. RESULTS: Evaluation of the adhesive remnant index scores with the chi-square test showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. Evaluation of the enamel damage index grades with the sign test for paired samples showed a statistically significant difference (P <0.01) between T0 and T2. CONCLUSIONS: Uncoated and precoated brackets exhibited similar debonding patterns. Additionally, the debonding method tested in this study did not restore the original enamel surface, although there was no clinically relevant enamel damage.
Authors: Oliver Stadler; Christian Dettwiler; Christian Meller; Michel Dalstra; Carlalberta Verna; Thomas Connert Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 2.079
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