Sam N Suliman1, Terry M Trojan2, Daranee Tantbirojn3, Antheunis Versluis4. 1. a Senior Resident, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tenn. 2. b Associate Professor and Department Chair, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tenn. 3. c Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tenn. 4. d Professor and Director of Biomaterials Research, Department of Bioscience Research, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tenn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure enamel surface changes after ceramic bracket debonding and after cleanup. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty extracted teeth were scanned in three dimensions using an optical scanner (baseline). Two ceramic bracket systems were placed (19 metal-reinforced polycrystalline ceramic brackets; 21 monocrystalline ceramic brackets). Seven days later, brackets were debonded and teeth scanned (post-debond). Adhesive remnants and bracket fragments were recorded. Tooth surfaces were cleaned using a finishing carbide bur and scanned again (post-cleanup). Post-debond and post-cleanup scans were aligned with the baseline, and surface changes were quantified. Results were statistically compared using t-tests and Mann-Whitney tests (α = .05). RESULTS: The depth of enamel loss (mean ± standard deviation) post-debond was 21 ± 8 µm and 33 µm and post-cleanup was 28 ± 14 µm and 18 ± 8 µm (P = .0191); the post-debond remnant thickness was 188 ± 113 µm and 120 ± 37 µm (P = .2381) and post-cleanup was 16 ± 5 µm and 15 µm for polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, respectively. The monocrystalline ceramic brackets predominantly left all adhesive on the tooth; the polycrystalline ceramic brackets were more likely to leave bracket fragments attached. CONCLUSION: Both systems allowed successful removal of the brackets with minimal enamel loss. However, the polycrystalline ceramic brackets left more fragments on the tooth, which complicated cleanup efforts.
OBJECTIVE: To measure enamel surface changes after ceramic bracket debonding and after cleanup. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty extracted teeth were scanned in three dimensions using an optical scanner (baseline). Two ceramic bracket systems were placed (19 metal-reinforced polycrystalline ceramic brackets; 21 monocrystalline ceramic brackets). Seven days later, brackets were debonded and teeth scanned (post-debond). Adhesive remnants and bracket fragments were recorded. Tooth surfaces were cleaned using a finishing carbide bur and scanned again (post-cleanup). Post-debond and post-cleanup scans were aligned with the baseline, and surface changes were quantified. Results were statistically compared using t-tests and Mann-Whitney tests (α = .05). RESULTS: The depth of enamel loss (mean ± standard deviation) post-debond was 21 ± 8 µm and 33 µm and post-cleanup was 28 ± 14 µm and 18 ± 8 µm (P = .0191); the post-debond remnant thickness was 188 ± 113 µm and 120 ± 37 µm (P = .2381) and post-cleanup was 16 ± 5 µm and 15 µm for polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, respectively. The monocrystalline ceramic brackets predominantly left all adhesive on the tooth; the polycrystalline ceramic brackets were more likely to leave bracket fragments attached. CONCLUSION: Both systems allowed successful removal of the brackets with minimal enamel loss. However, the polycrystalline ceramic brackets left more fragments on the tooth, which complicated cleanup efforts.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ceramic bracket; Debonding; Dental finishing; Digital scan; Enamel loss