Enamel Quality after Debonding: Evaluation by Optical Coherence Tomography.

The aims of this study were to evaluate quantitatively the enamel fractures, adhesive remnants and bracket fragments on enamel after debonding of metal and ceramic brackets, and to quantify the layer of adhesive remnants in depth after two different cleanup procedures. Metal and ceramic brackets were bonded on 120 human incisors and then debonded using two different techniques with Side Cutter (SC) and Anterior Bracket Removal plier (ABR). After this, a high-speed tungsten carbide finishing bur or a low-speed tungsten carbide finishing bur was used. The debonded samples were submitted to enamel assessment with optical coherence tomography (OCT). In sequence, two different methods of removing the remaining adhesive (tungsten carbide burs at high and low speed) were performed and at the end of these procedures, the remaining adhesive layer was measured with OCT. The results demonstrated that enamel fractures were observed only in the samples bonded with ceramic brackets, and the type of pliers did not influence the incidence and extent of enamel damage. Moreover, the type of debonding technique (with side-cutting pliers or anterior bracket removal pliers) and the type of bracket did not influence the amount of adhesive remaining after debonding. The burs at low speed removed the remaining adhesive more effectively during cleanup procedures.

[1]  L L Otis,et al.  Imaging of hard- and soft-tissue structure in the oral cavity by optical coherence tomography. , 1998, Applied optics.

[2]  G. Gelikonov,et al.  In vivo OCT imaging of hard and soft tissue of the oral cavity. , 1998, Optics express.

[3]  J. Odegaard,et al.  Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. , 1988, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[4]  M. Pithon,et al.  Optical coherence tomography for debonding evaluation: an in-vitro qualitative study. , 2013, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[5]  C. Shen,et al.  The effects of debonding on the enamel surface. , 1984, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[6]  L. Winchester Bond strengths of five different ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. , 1991, European journal of orthodontics.

[7]  B. Zachrisson,et al.  Enamel cracks in debonded, debanded, and orthodontically untreated teeth. , 1980, American journal of orthodontics.

[8]  S E Bishara,et al.  Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part I. Background and methods. , 1990, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[9]  A. Gomes,et al.  Evaluation of the integrity of dental sealants by optical coherence tomography. , 2011, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[10]  A. Z. Freitas,et al.  Biofilm retention by 3 methods of ligation on orthodontic brackets: a microbiologic and optical coherence tomography analysis. , 2011, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[11]  Byeong Ha Lee,et al.  Optical approach to the periodontal ligament under orthodontic tooth movement: a preliminary study with optical coherence tomography. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[12]  C. Elias,et al.  Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets , 2014, Dental press journal of orthodontics.

[13]  N. Eid,et al.  The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. , 1995, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[14]  Eric A. Swanson,et al.  Quantitative Assessment of Macular Edema With Optical Coherence Tomography , 1995 .

[15]  D. Kubein-Meesenburg,et al.  Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. , 2010, The Angle orthodontist.

[16]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[17]  K. Mundstock,et al.  In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of different metal brackets , 2016, Dental press journal of orthodontics.

[18]  W Drexler,et al.  Compact, broad-bandwidth fiber laser for sub-2-microm axial resolution optical coherence tomography in the 1300-nm wavelength region. , 2003, Optics letters.

[19]  N. Shimizu,et al.  The use of easily debondable orthodontic adhesives with ceramic brackets. , 2011, Dental materials journal.

[20]  M. Papadopoulos,et al.  Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. , 1997, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.