Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets

doi:10.1016/0002-9416(82)90081-1

American Journal of Orthodontics

Volume 81, Issue 5, May 1982, Pages 423-426

https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90081-1 Get rights and content

Abstract

Methods for the removal of resins attached to acid-etched enamel are receiving increased attention. An evaluation method which permitted convenient statistical comparisons of the effectiveness of various removal procedures was used. The method was based on ranking of SEM photomicrographs of epoxy replicas of teeth from clinical cases. Forty-five orthodontically treated teeth were evaluated after removal of brackets and a heavily filled bonding resin, using three basic procedures. Eleven raters ranked photomicrographs on the basis of the apparent smoothness of the replicated enamel surface. There was no significant difference in the judgment of smoothness by the raters. Significant differences were found between the three removal techniques. Enamel roughness decreased with removal technique in the following order: (1) hand scaler, (2) twelve-fluted carbide bur, and (3) ultrafine bur. A final pumicing treatment was also found to be beneficial, although it did not remove any deep scratches.

References (12)

N.W. Garn
Direct bonding: A clinical study using an ultraviolet-sensitive adhesive system
Am. J. Orthod.
(1976)
V. Burapavong et al.
Enamel surface characteristics on removal of bonded orthodontic brackets
Am. J. Orthod.
(1978)
A.J. Gwinnett et al.
Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: Clinical applications
Am. J. Orthod.
(1977)
B.U. Zachrisson et al.
Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques
Am. J. Orthod.
(1979)
C.R.L. Brown et al.
Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives
Am. J. Orthod.
(1978)
S. Brandt et al.
Practical methods of bonding, direct and indirect
J. Clin. Orthod.
(1975)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (56)

Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: An in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy
2011, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Citation Excerpt :
Retief and Denys20 proposed the use of a tungsten carbide bur to remove bulk and residual resin from teeth and to finish the underlying enamel using graded discs or ceramic wheels. Zachrisson and Arthun21 reported that a tungsten carbide bur used at low speed produces a fine scratch pattern and less enamel loss, whereas Rouleau et al22 recommended a tungsten carbide bur operated at high speed. Similar to Retief and Denys, Zarrinia et al9 suggested using a 12-bladed tungsten carbide bur to remove resin, followed by polishing with Sof-Lex discs to produce a smoother enamel surface.
The purposes of this in-vivo study were to compare the modes of failure of uncoated and adhesive precoated metal brackets by using the adhesive remnant index, and to assess the quality of the enamel surface after cleanup by using the enamel damage index.
Twelve Victory brackets (group A) and 12 Victory adhesive precoated brackets (group B) (both, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded onto the maxillary second premolars of 12 volunteers. The uncoated brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive resin (3M Unitek). Replicas of the teeth were made before bonding (T0), after bracket removal (T1), and after cleanup (T2). Scanning electron microscope images of all labial enamel surfaces were taken at T0, T1, and T2, and these were evaluated according to the adhesive remnant index and the enamel damage index.
Evaluation of the adhesive remnant index scores with the chi-square test showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. Evaluation of the enamel damage index grades with the sign test for paired samples showed a statistically significant difference (P <0.01) between T0 and T2.
Uncoated and precoated brackets exhibited similar debonding patterns. Additionally, the debonding method tested in this study did not restore the original enamel surface, although there was no clinically relevant enamel damage.
A Historical Overview of the Development of the Acid-Etch Bonding System in Orthodontics
2010, Seminars in Orthodontics
Enamel surface roughness evaluation after debonding and residual resin removal using four different burs
2023, Journal of Contemporary Orthodontics
Enamel polishing after orthodontic bracket debonding using two different protocols and two different adhesives
2020, Journal of International Dental and Medical Research
Enamel surface roughness after debonding: A comparative study using three different burs
2018, Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Thermal imaging of the pulp during residual adhesive removal
2017, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: This work was supported in part by NIH-NIDR Grant DE 04000.

^☆☆: Based on a thesis presented by the senior author for the M.S. degree, North-western University Dental School, 1980.

View full text

Original articleEnamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets☆,☆☆

Abstract

Am. J. Orthod.

Am. J. Orthod.

Am. J. Orthod.

Am. J. Orthod.

Am. J. Orthod.

Practical methods of bonding, direct and indirect

J. Clin. Orthod.

Original article
Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets☆,☆☆