Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes

Head & Face Medicine

Katarzyna Grocholewicz¹  Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak³  Tomasz Szatkiewicz²  Katarzyna Tandecka²  Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska¹ 

[1] Department of General Dentistry Pomeranian Medical, University of Szczecin, al. Powstancow Wlkp. 72, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland;Department of Fine Mechanics Koszalin, University of Technology, ul. Raclawicka 15-17, 75-620 Koszalin, Poland;Department of Dental Surgery Pomeranian Medical, University of Szczecin, al. Powstancow Wlkp. 72, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland

关键词: Resin remnants;    Enamel damage;    Orthodontic debonding;   

Others  :  1145504
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-160X-10-37

 received in 2014-05-12, accepted in 2014-09-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Aims

Presenting a new method for direct, quantitative analysis of enamel surface. Measurement of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding molar tubes.

Material and methods

Buccal surfaces of fifteen extracted human molars were directly scanned with an optic blue-light 3D scanner to the nearest 2 μm. After 20 s etching molar tubes were bonded and after 24 h storing in 0.9% saline - debonded. Then 3D scanning was repeated. Superimposition and comparison were proceeded and shape alterations of the entire objects were analyzed using specialized computer software. Residual adhesive heights as well as enamel loss depths have been obtained for the entire buccal surfaces. Residual adhesive volume and enamel loss volume have been calculated for every tooth.

Results

The maximum height of adhesive remaining on enamel surface was 0.76 mm and the volume on particular teeth ranged from 0.047 mm³ to 4.16 mm³. The median adhesive remnant volume was 0.988 mm³. Mean depths of enamel loss for particular teeth ranged from 0.0076 mm to 0.0416 mm. Highest maximum depth of enamel loss was 0.207 mm. Median volume of enamel loss was 0.104 mm³ and maximum volume was 1.484 mm³.

Conclusions

Blue-light 3D scanning is able to provide direct precise scans of the enamel surface, which can be superimposed in order to calculate shape alterations. Debonding molar tubes leaves a certain amount of adhesive remnants on the enamel, however the interface fracture pattern varies for particular teeth and areas of enamel loss are present as well.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Janiszewska-Olszowska et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Stratmann U, Schaarschmidt K, Wegener H, Ehmer U: The extent of enamel surface fractures. A quantitative comparison of thermally debonded ceramic and mechanically debonded metal brackets by energy dispersive micro- and image-analysis. Eur J Orthod 1996, 18:655-662.
• [2]Artun J, Bergland S: Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984, 85:333-340.
• [3]Krell KV, Courey JM, Bishara SE: Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993, 103:258-266.
• [4]Osorio R, Toledano M, García-Godoy F: Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child 1998, 65:313–317-354.
• [5]Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F: Bracket bonding with 15- or 60-second etching and adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod 1999, 69:45-48.
• [6]Miksic M, Slaj M, Mestrovic C: Stereomicroscope analysis of enamel surface after orthodontic bracket debonding. Coll Antropol 2003, 27(Suppl 2):83-89.
• [7]Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R, Oliver RG, Newcombe RG: A clinical study of amount of adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding, comparing etch times of 15 and 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989, 95:415-421.
• [8]Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR: Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: an in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011, 140:696-702.
• [9]Tecco S, Tetè S, D’Attilio M, Festa F: Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Minerva Stomatol 2008, 57:81-94.
• [10]Sessa T, Civović J, Pajević T, Juloski J, Beloica M, Pavlović V, Glisić B: Scanning electron microscopic examination of Enamel surface after fixed orthodontic treatment: in-vivo study. Srp Arh Celok Lek 2012, 140:22-28.
• [11]Pont HB, Ozcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y: Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010, 138:387. e1-9; disc. 387–389
• [12]Knosel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Sadat-Khonsari R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O, Ziebolz D: Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. Angle Orthod 2010, 80:1036-1044.
• [13]Chang WG, Lim BS, Yoon TH, Lee YK, Kim CW: Effects of salicylic-lactic acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of brackets and enamel surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 2005, 32:287-295.
• [14]Ritter DE, Ritter AV, Bruggeman G, Locks A, Tulloch JF: Bond strengths and adhesive remnant index of self-etching adhesives used to bond brackets to instrumented and uninstrumented enamel. Am J Dent 2006, 19:47-50.
• [15]Brosh T, Kaufman A, Balabanovsky A, Vardimon AD: In vivo strength and enamel damage in two orthodontic debonding methods. J Biomech 2005, 38:1107-1113.
• [16]David VA, Stanley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR: Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002, 121:291-296.
• [17]Ruppenthal T, Stratmann U, Sergl HG, Czech D: Elementanalytische und quantitative morphometrische Bestimmung von Kunstsoffresten und Schmelzausrissen nach der Abnahme von Metallbrackets. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1992, 53:99-105.
• [18]Power & Sample Calculator http://statisticalsolutions.net/pss_calc.php webcite
• [19]Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E: Three-dimensional measurement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007, 131:301.e9-15.
• [20]Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B: Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2012, 34:25-32.
• [21]Fitzpatrick DA, Way D: The effects of wear, acid etching and bond removal on human enamel. Am J Orthod 1977, 72:671-681.
• [22]Hajrassie MK, Khier SE: In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007, 131:384-390.
• [23]Fjeld M, Øgard B: Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel surfaces exposed to 3 orthodontic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006, 130:575-581.
• [24]Caspersen I: Residual acrylic adhesive after removal of plastic orthodontic brackets: A scanning electron microscopic study. Am J Orthod 1977, 71:637-650.
• [25]Burapavong V, Marshall GW, Apfel DA, Perry HT: Enamel surface characteristics on removal of bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1978, 74:176-187.
• [26]Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L: Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. Am J Orthod 1977, 71:651-665.
• [27]Van Vaes H, Matter T, Krejci I: Three-dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997, 112:666-669.