Cargando…

Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study

Background. Bracket base design is a factor influencing shear bond strength. High shear bond strength leads to enamel crack formation during debonding. The aim of this study was to compare enamel damage variations, including the number and length of enamel cracks after debonding of two different bas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahangar Atashi, Mohammad Hossein, Sadr Haghighi, Amir Hooman, Nastarin, Parastou, Ahangar Atashi, Sina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5928475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29732022
http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.009
_version_ 1783319250068307968
author Ahangar Atashi, Mohammad Hossein
Sadr Haghighi, Amir Hooman
Nastarin, Parastou
Ahangar Atashi, Sina
author_facet Ahangar Atashi, Mohammad Hossein
Sadr Haghighi, Amir Hooman
Nastarin, Parastou
Ahangar Atashi, Sina
author_sort Ahangar Atashi, Mohammad Hossein
collection PubMed
description Background. Bracket base design is a factor influencing shear bond strength. High shear bond strength leads to enamel crack formation during debonding. The aim of this study was to compare enamel damage variations, including the number and length of enamel cracks after debonding of two different base designs. Methods. Eighty-eight extracted human premolars were randomly divided into2 groups (n=44). The teeth in each group were bonded by two types of brackets with different base designs: 80-gauge mesh design versus anchor pylon design with pylons for adhesive retention. The number and length of enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding were evaluated under an optical stereomicroscope ×40 in both groups. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the number of cracks between the two groups. ANCOVA was used for comparison of crack lengths after and before debonding in each group and between the two groups. Results. There was a significant increase in enamel crack length and numbers in each group after debonding. There was no significant difference in enamel crack numbers after debonding between the two groups, whereas the length of enamel cracks was significantly greater in anchor pylon base design after debonding. Conclusion. Bracket bases with pylon design for adhesive retention caused more iatrogenic debonding damage to enamel surface.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5928475
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59284752018-05-04 Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study Ahangar Atashi, Mohammad Hossein Sadr Haghighi, Amir Hooman Nastarin, Parastou Ahangar Atashi, Sina J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects Original Article Background. Bracket base design is a factor influencing shear bond strength. High shear bond strength leads to enamel crack formation during debonding. The aim of this study was to compare enamel damage variations, including the number and length of enamel cracks after debonding of two different base designs. Methods. Eighty-eight extracted human premolars were randomly divided into2 groups (n=44). The teeth in each group were bonded by two types of brackets with different base designs: 80-gauge mesh design versus anchor pylon design with pylons for adhesive retention. The number and length of enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding were evaluated under an optical stereomicroscope ×40 in both groups. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the number of cracks between the two groups. ANCOVA was used for comparison of crack lengths after and before debonding in each group and between the two groups. Results. There was a significant increase in enamel crack length and numbers in each group after debonding. There was no significant difference in enamel crack numbers after debonding between the two groups, whereas the length of enamel cracks was significantly greater in anchor pylon base design after debonding. Conclusion. Bracket bases with pylon design for adhesive retention caused more iatrogenic debonding damage to enamel surface. Tabriz University of Medical Sciences 2018 2018-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5928475/ /pubmed/29732022 http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.009 Text en © 2018 Ahangar Atashi et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article published and distributed by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ahangar Atashi, Mohammad Hossein
Sadr Haghighi, Amir Hooman
Nastarin, Parastou
Ahangar Atashi, Sina
Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study
title Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study
title_full Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study
title_fullStr Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study
title_short Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study
title_sort variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5928475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29732022
http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.009
work_keys_str_mv AT ahangaratashimohammadhossein variationsinenameldamageafterdebondingoftwodifferentbracketbasedesignsaninvitrostudy
AT sadrhaghighiamirhooman variationsinenameldamageafterdebondingoftwodifferentbracketbasedesignsaninvitrostudy
AT nastarinparastou variationsinenameldamageafterdebondingoftwodifferentbracketbasedesignsaninvitrostudy
AT ahangaratashisina variationsinenameldamageafterdebondingoftwodifferentbracketbasedesignsaninvitrostudy