Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding

A quantitative analysis in vitro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

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 mm 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)651-656
Number of pages6
JournalAngle Orthodontist
Volume85
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Ceramics
Dental Enamel
Tooth
Adhesives
In Vitro Techniques
Metals

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding : A quantitative analysis in vitro. / Suliman, Sam N.; Trojan, Terry; Versluis, Daranee; Versluis, Antheunis.

In: Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 85, No. 4, 01.01.2015, p. 651-656.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3ffcdce7083a4c8eae9d237ca8ea4c30,
title = "Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro",
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 mm 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.",
author = "Suliman, {Sam N.} and Terry Trojan and Daranee Versluis and Antheunis Versluis",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2319/032414-224.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "651--656",
journal = "Angle Orthodontist",
issn = "0003-3219",
publisher = "E H Angle Orthodontists Research & Education Foundation, Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding

T2 - A quantitative analysis in vitro

AU - Suliman, Sam N.

AU - Trojan, Terry

AU - Versluis, Daranee

AU - Versluis, Antheunis

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - 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 mm 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.

AB - 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 mm 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937053483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937053483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2319/032414-224.1

DO - 10.2319/032414-224.1

M3 - Article

VL - 85

SP - 651

EP - 656

JO - Angle Orthodontist

JF - Angle Orthodontist

SN - 0003-3219

IS - 4

ER -