Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of ultrasonic orthodontic bracket removal and cleanup and compare them with conventional debonding and cleaning of the enamel surfaces with burs and polishing disks. The amount of enamel loss and time for bracket removal and clean-up were also addressed. Thirty extracted human premolars were collected. The teeth were randomly placed in one of the three debonding groups: debonding with orthodontic pliers and enamel clean-up with finishing burs and polishing disks (group 1), debonding with orthodontic pliers and ultrasonic clean-up of the enamel surface (group 2), and ultrasonic debonding enamel clean-up (group 3). The teeth were stored for 48 hours in 100% humidity before bracket removal. All brackets were then removed. Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were made before and after bracket removal. Direct measurements of the teeth in micrometers were made at all steps. An additional 30 teeth were similarly prepared, and the brackets were debonded and cleaned-up as in the three groups previously described. The total time for bracket removal and enamel clean-up for each group was recorded in seconds.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[1]  G. Marshall,et al.  Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. , 1982, American journal of orthodontics.

[2]  G. King,et al.  Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. , 1982, American journal of orthodontics.

[3]  M. Brännström,et al.  Etching of deciduous teeth and young and old permanent teeth. A comparison between 15 and 60 seconds of etching. , 1980, American journal of orthodontics.

[4]  P. Diedrich Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: a study with the scanning electron microscope. , 1981, American journal of orthodontics.

[5]  D. Way,et al.  Enamel loss due to orthodontic bonding with filled and unfilled resins using various clean-up techniques. , 1980, American journal of orthodontics.

[6]  A. Gwinnett,et al.  Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. , 1977, American journal of orthodontics.

[7]  J. Powers,et al.  Bond strength of orthodontic direct-bonding cement-bracket systems as studied in vitro. , 1982, American journal of orthodontics.

[8]  M. Buonocore A Simple Method of Increasing the Adhesion of Acrylic Filling Materials to Enamel Surfaces , 1955, Journal of dental research.

[9]  D A Fitzpatrick,et al.  The effects of wear, acid etching, and bond removal on human enamel. , 1977, American journal of orthodontics.

[10]  B. Zachrisson A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. , 1977, American journal of orthodontics.

[11]  Retief Dh,et al.  Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. , 1979 .

[12]  R. Thompson,et al.  Enamel loss due to prophylaxis and multiple bonding/debonding of orthodontic attachments. , 1981, American journal of orthodontics.

[13]  V. D. Williams,et al.  Removal of acid-etched fixed partial dentures with modified ultrasonic scaler tips. , 1986, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[14]  D. Way,et al.  Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. , 1978, American journal of orthodontics.

[15]  J Artun,et al.  Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. , 1984, American journal of orthodontics.

[16]  B. Zachrisson,et al.  Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. , 1979, American journal of orthodontics.

[17]  G. Marshall,et al.  Replication technique for monitoring intra-oral processes with the SEM. , 1978, Quintessence international, dental digest.