Cargando…

Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study

METHODS: The current study includes 80 extracted premolars of human from the patient visiting for orthodontic treatment of Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences, Karnataka, India. The brackets were debonded using four different methods. The enamel surface damage after the procedure was assessed with th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bora, Neelutpal, Mahanta, Putul, Kalita, Deepjyoti, Deka, Sangeeta, Konwar, Ranjumoni, Phukan, Chiranjita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8124004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34035672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/5561040
_version_ 1783693083218542592
author Bora, Neelutpal
Mahanta, Putul
Kalita, Deepjyoti
Deka, Sangeeta
Konwar, Ranjumoni
Phukan, Chiranjita
author_facet Bora, Neelutpal
Mahanta, Putul
Kalita, Deepjyoti
Deka, Sangeeta
Konwar, Ranjumoni
Phukan, Chiranjita
author_sort Bora, Neelutpal
collection PubMed
description METHODS: The current study includes 80 extracted premolars of human from the patient visiting for orthodontic treatment of Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences, Karnataka, India. The brackets were debonded using four different methods. The enamel surface damage after the procedure was assessed with the Enamel Surface Index (ESI); similarly, the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score was used to determine the adhesive residual deposit. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to visualize better microporosities and micromechanical retention of adhesive remnants on the enamel surface. The normality of the data was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Depending upon the normality test result, the one-way ANOVA test or Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test the mean ESI and mean ARI differences among different debonding methods along with the appropriate post hoc tests. The necessary ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the institute. RESULTS: The ultrasonic scaler (US) technique led to more significant enamel surface damage, with 13 (65%) samples in the ESI scores III and IV against the satisfactory surface in 2 (10%) samples with the ligature cutter (LC) technique (ESI-I) reflecting LC as a better technique. The ESI scores (III and IV) for debonding plier (DP) and thermal method (TM) reflected a higher value in 12 (60%) and 10 (50%) samples and caused more damage to the enamel surface as compared to the LC technique. The ARI score was highest (ARI-1 = 40%) with the LC technique, followed by the US (ARI-1 = 20%), TM (ARI-1 = 15%), and DP (ARI-1 = 5%) methods. We have observed a significant association (p value <0.05) of the ARI score among four different debonding ways in terms of each tooth's residual adhesive after the bracket removal. CONCLUSION: The result establishes the LC technique as a more acceptable one as it causes minimal harm to the debonded surface. The adhesive left on the debonded area is also minimum as compared to the other three methods tested. Therefore, it can be suggested as an ideal method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8124004
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81240042021-05-24 Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study Bora, Neelutpal Mahanta, Putul Kalita, Deepjyoti Deka, Sangeeta Konwar, Ranjumoni Phukan, Chiranjita ScientificWorldJournal Research Article METHODS: The current study includes 80 extracted premolars of human from the patient visiting for orthodontic treatment of Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences, Karnataka, India. The brackets were debonded using four different methods. The enamel surface damage after the procedure was assessed with the Enamel Surface Index (ESI); similarly, the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score was used to determine the adhesive residual deposit. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to visualize better microporosities and micromechanical retention of adhesive remnants on the enamel surface. The normality of the data was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Depending upon the normality test result, the one-way ANOVA test or Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test the mean ESI and mean ARI differences among different debonding methods along with the appropriate post hoc tests. The necessary ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the institute. RESULTS: The ultrasonic scaler (US) technique led to more significant enamel surface damage, with 13 (65%) samples in the ESI scores III and IV against the satisfactory surface in 2 (10%) samples with the ligature cutter (LC) technique (ESI-I) reflecting LC as a better technique. The ESI scores (III and IV) for debonding plier (DP) and thermal method (TM) reflected a higher value in 12 (60%) and 10 (50%) samples and caused more damage to the enamel surface as compared to the LC technique. The ARI score was highest (ARI-1 = 40%) with the LC technique, followed by the US (ARI-1 = 20%), TM (ARI-1 = 15%), and DP (ARI-1 = 5%) methods. We have observed a significant association (p value <0.05) of the ARI score among four different debonding ways in terms of each tooth's residual adhesive after the bracket removal. CONCLUSION: The result establishes the LC technique as a more acceptable one as it causes minimal harm to the debonded surface. The adhesive left on the debonded area is also minimum as compared to the other three methods tested. Therefore, it can be suggested as an ideal method. Hindawi 2021-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8124004/ /pubmed/34035672 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/5561040 Text en Copyright © 2021 Neelutpal Bora et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bora, Neelutpal
Mahanta, Putul
Kalita, Deepjyoti
Deka, Sangeeta
Konwar, Ranjumoni
Phukan, Chiranjita
Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study
title Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study
title_full Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study
title_fullStr Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study
title_full_unstemmed Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study
title_short Enamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study
title_sort enamel surface damage following debonding of ceramic brackets: a hospital-based study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8124004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34035672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/5561040
work_keys_str_mv AT boraneelutpal enamelsurfacedamagefollowingdebondingofceramicbracketsahospitalbasedstudy
AT mahantaputul enamelsurfacedamagefollowingdebondingofceramicbracketsahospitalbasedstudy
AT kalitadeepjyoti enamelsurfacedamagefollowingdebondingofceramicbracketsahospitalbasedstudy
AT dekasangeeta enamelsurfacedamagefollowingdebondingofceramicbracketsahospitalbasedstudy
AT konwarranjumoni enamelsurfacedamagefollowingdebondingofceramicbracketsahospitalbasedstudy
AT phukanchiranjita enamelsurfacedamagefollowingdebondingofceramicbracketsahospitalbasedstudy