OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the debonding procedure leads to restitutio ad integrum of the enamel surface by investigating the presence of enamel within the bracket base remnants after debonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances were included. A total of 1068 brackets were microphotographed; the brackets presenting some remnants on the base (n = 818) were selected and analyzed with ImageJ software to measure the remnant area. From this population a statistically significant sample (n = 100) was observed under a scanning electron microscope to check for the presence of enamel within the remnants. Energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry was also performed to obtain quantitative data. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in the remnant percentage between arches were observed for incisor and canine brackets (P < .0001 and P = .022, respectively). From a morphologic analysis of the scanning electron micrographs the bracket bases were categorized in 3 groups: group A, bases presenting a thin enamel coat (83%); group B, bases showing sizable enamel fragments (7%); group C, bases with no morphologic evidence of enamel presence (10%). Calcium presence was noted on all evaluated brackets under energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry. No significant difference was observed in the Ca/Si ratio between group A (16.21%) and group B (18.77%), whereas the Ca/Si ratio in group C (5.40%) was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P < .323 and P = .0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The objective of an atraumatic debonding is not achieved yet; in some cases the damage could be clinically relevant.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the debonding procedure leads to restitutio ad integrum of the enamel surface by investigating the presence of enamel within the bracket base remnants after debonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances were included. A total of 1068 brackets were microphotographed; the brackets presenting some remnants on the base (n = 818) were selected and analyzed with ImageJ software to measure the remnant area. From this population a statistically significant sample (n = 100) was observed under a scanning electron microscope to check for the presence of enamel within the remnants. Energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry was also performed to obtain quantitative data. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in the remnant percentage between arches were observed for incisor and canine brackets (P < .0001 and P = .022, respectively). From a morphologic analysis of the scanning electron micrographs the bracket bases were categorized in 3 groups: group A, bases presenting a thin enamel coat (83%); group B, bases showing sizable enamel fragments (7%); group C, bases with no morphologic evidence of enamel presence (10%). Calcium presence was noted on all evaluated brackets under energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry. No significant difference was observed in the Ca/Si ratio between group A (16.21%) and group B (18.77%), whereas the Ca/Si ratio in group C (5.40%) was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P < .323 and P = .0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The objective of an atraumatic debonding is not achieved yet; in some cases the damage could be clinically relevant.
Authors: Lina P Theodorakopoulou; P Lionel Sadowsky; Alex Jacobson; William Lacefield Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Flávia Mitiko Fernandes Kitahara-Céia; José Nelson Mucha; Paulo Acioly Marques dos Santos Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska; Robert Tomkowski; Katarzyna Tandecka; Piotr Stepien; Tomasz Szatkiewicz; Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak; Katarzyna Grocholewicz Journal: PeerJ Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Can Kuskonmaz; Alberto De Stefani; Gilberto Artioli; Matteo Zanarini; Giulio Alessandri Bonetti; Giovanni Bruno; Antonio Gracco Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 2.757