Garima Choudhary1, Vikas Gill2, Y N N Reddy3, Sudhanshu Sanadhya4, Pankaj Aapaliya5, Nidhi Sharma6. 1. Post Graduate Student, Department of Orthodontics, Rajasthan Dental College and Hospital , Jaipur, Rajasthan, India . 2. Reader, Department of Orthodontics, Rajasthan Dental College and Hospital , Jaipur, Rajasthan, India . 3. Professor and Head, Department of Orthodontics, Rajasthan Dental College and Hospital , Jaipur, Rajasthan, India . 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Government Dental College and Hospital , Jaipur, Rajasthan, India . 5. Post Graduate Student, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Pacific Dental College and Hospital , Udaipur, Rajasthan, India . 6. Junior Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Jaipur Dental College and Hospital , Jaipur, Rajasthan, India .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Debonding procedure is time consuming and damaging to the enamel if performed with improper technique. Various debonding methods include: the conventional methods that use pliers or wrenches, an ultrasonic method, electrothermal devices, air pressure impulse devices, diamond burs to grind the brackets off the tooth surface and lasers. Among all these methods, using debonding pliers is most convenient and effective method but has been reported to cause damage to the teeth. Recently, a New Debonding Instrument designed specifically for ceramic and composite brackets has been introduced. As this is a new instrument, little information is available on efficacy of this instrument. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the debonding characteristics of both "the conventional debonding Pliers" and "the New debonding instrument" when removing ceramic, composite and metallic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One Hundred Thirty eight extracted maxillary premolar teeth were collected and divided into two Groups: Group A and Group B (n = 69) respectively. They were further divided into 3 subGroups (n = 23) each according to the types of brackets to be bonded. In subGroups A1 and B1{stainless steel};A2 and B2{ceramic};A3 and B3{composite}adhesive precoated maxillary premolar brackets were used. Among them {ceramic and composite} adhesive pre-coated maxillary premolar brackets were bonded. All the teeth were etched using 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds and the brackets were bonded using Transbond XT primer. Brackets were debonded using Conventional Debonding Plier and New Debonding Instrument (Group B). After debonding, the enamel surface of each tooth was examined under stereo microscope (10X magnifications). Amodifiedadhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to quantify the amount of remaining adhesive on each tooth. RESULTS: The observations demonstrate that the results of New Debonding Instrument for debonding of metal, ceramic and composite brackets were statistically significantly different (p = 0.04) and superior from the results of conventional debonding Pliers. CONCLUSION: The debonding efficiency of New Debonding Instrument is better than the debonding efficiency of Conventional Debonding Pliers for use of metal, ceramic and composite brackets respectively.
BACKGROUND: Debonding procedure is time consuming and damaging to the enamel if performed with improper technique. Various debonding methods include: the conventional methods that use pliers or wrenches, an ultrasonic method, electrothermal devices, air pressure impulse devices, diamond burs to grind the brackets off the tooth surface and lasers. Among all these methods, using debonding pliers is most convenient and effective method but has been reported to cause damage to the teeth. Recently, a New Debonding Instrument designed specifically for ceramic and composite brackets has been introduced. As this is a new instrument, little information is available on efficacy of this instrument. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the debonding characteristics of both "the conventional debonding Pliers" and "the New debonding instrument" when removing ceramic, composite and metallic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One Hundred Thirty eight extracted maxillary premolar teeth were collected and divided into two Groups: Group A and Group B (n = 69) respectively. They were further divided into 3 subGroups (n = 23) each according to the types of brackets to be bonded. In subGroups A1 and B1{stainless steel};A2 and B2{ceramic};A3 and B3{composite}adhesive precoated maxillary premolar brackets were used. Among them {ceramic and composite} adhesive pre-coated maxillary premolar brackets were bonded. All the teeth were etched using 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds and the brackets were bonded using Transbond XT primer. Brackets were debonded using Conventional Debonding Plier and New Debonding Instrument (Group B). After debonding, the enamel surface of each tooth was examined under stereo microscope (10X magnifications). Amodifiedadhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to quantify the amount of remaining adhesive on each tooth. RESULTS: The observations demonstrate that the results of New Debonding Instrument for debonding of metal, ceramic and composite brackets were statistically significantly different (p = 0.04) and superior from the results of conventional debonding Pliers. CONCLUSION: The debonding efficiency of New Debonding Instrument is better than the debonding efficiency of Conventional Debonding Pliers for use of metal, ceramic and composite brackets respectively.
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: Mehmet Oguz Oztoprak; Didem Nalbantgil; Ayşe Sine Erdem; Murat Tozlu; Tülin Arun Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Luca Piccoli; Guido Migliau; Laith Konstantinos Besharat; Stefano Di Carlo; Giorgio Pompa; Roberto Di Giorgio Journal: Ann Stomatol (Roma) Date: 2017-11-08