Iranian Journal of Orthodontics

Published by: Kowsar

Comparison of Debonding Characteristics of the Conventional Metal and Self-Ligating Brackets to Enamel: An in Vitro Study

Mohammad Karim Soltani 1 , Sadegh Barkhori 1 , Yoones Alizadeh 2 and Farzaneh Golfeshan 1 , *
Authors Information
1 Department of Orthodontics, Dental Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, IR Iran
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amir Kabir University of Technology, Tehran, IR Iran
Article information
  • Iranian Journal of Orthodontics: December 28, 2014, 9 (3); e4842
  • Published Online: December 30, 2014
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Received: August 3, 2014
  • Accepted: August 12, 2014
  • DOI: 10.17795/ijo-3739

To Cite: Karim Soltani M, Barkhori S, Alizadeh Y, Golfeshan F. Comparison of Debonding Characteristics of the Conventional Metal and Self-Ligating Brackets to Enamel: An in Vitro Study, Iran J Ortho. 2014 ; 9(3):e4842. doi: 10.17795/ijo-3739.

Abstract
Copyright © 2014, Iranian Journal of Orthodontics.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Patients and Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion
Footnotes
References
  • 1. Schuler FS, van Waes H. SEM-evaluation of enamel surfaces after removal of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Dent. 2003; 16(6): 390-4[PubMed]
  • 2. Pignatta LMB, Duarte Junior S, Santos ECA. Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing. Den Press J Orthod. 2012; 17(4): 77-84
  • 3. Mahdi H, Ghaib NH, Saloom HF. Evaluation of enamel surface damage after debonding using three different pliers. Mustansiria Dent J. 2011; 8(3): 281-7
  • 4. Karamouzos A, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA. Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 112(1): 34-40[PubMed]
  • 5. Yapel MJ, Quick DC. Experimental traumatic debonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64(2): 131-6[DOI][PubMed]
  • 6. Rouleau BJ, Marshall GJ, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1982; 81(5): 423-6[PubMed]
  • 7. Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: An in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98(3): 263-73[DOI]
  • 8. Redd TB, Shivapuja PK. Debonding ceramic brackets: effects on enamel. J Clin Orthod. 1991; 25(8): 475-81[PubMed]
  • 9. Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon J, Warren JJ. Enamel cracks and ceramic bracket failure during debonding in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(6): 1078-83[DOI][PubMed]
  • 10. Sharma-Sayal SK, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV, Titley KC. The influence of orthodontic bracket base design on shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124(1): 74-82[DOI][PubMed]
  • 11. Oh KT, Choo SU, Kim KM, Kim KN. A stainless steel bracket for orthodontic application. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27(3): 237-44[DOI][PubMed]
  • 12. Kitahara-Ceia FM, Mucha JN, Marques dos Santos PA. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(4): 548-55[DOI][PubMed]
  • 13. Liu JK, Chung CH, Chang CY, Shieh DB. Bond strength and debonding characteristics of a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(6): 761-5[DOI][PubMed]
  • 14. Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(6): 726 e1-726 e18[DOI][PubMed]
  • 15. Cehreli SB, Polat-Ozsoy O, Sar C, Cubukcu HE, Cehreli ZC. A comparative study of qualitative and quantitative methods for the assessment of adhesive remnant after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34(2): 188-92[DOI][PubMed]
  • 16. 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 Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140(5): 696-702[DOI][PubMed]
  • 17. Habibi M, Nik TH, Hooshmand T. Comparison of debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(5): 675-9[DOI][PubMed]
  • 18. Bishara SE, Fehr DE, Jakobsen JR. A comparative study of the debonding strengths of different ceramic brackets, enamel conditioners, and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104(2): 170-9[DOI]
  • 19. Mundstock KS, Sadowsky PL, Lacefield W, Bae S. An in vitro evaluation of a metal reinforced orthodontic ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116(6): 635-41[PubMed]
  • 20. Wang WN, Li CH, Chou TH, Wang DD, Lin LH, Lin CT. Bond strength of various bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125(1): 65-70[DOI][PubMed]
  • 21. Cucu M, Driessen CH, Ferreira PD. The influence of orthodontic bracket base diameter and mesh size on bond strength. SADJ. 2002; 57(1): 16-20[PubMed]
  • 22. Santos BM, Pithon MM, Ruellas AC, Sant'Anna EF. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded with hydrophilic and hydrophobic bond systems under contamination. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(5): 963-7[DOI][PubMed]
  • 23. Zachrisson BU, Skogan O, Hoymyhr S. Enamel cracks in debonded, debanded, and orthodontically untreated teeth. Am J Orthod. 1980; 77(3): 307-19[PubMed]
  • 24. Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. 2005; : 612-9
  • 25. Heravi F, Rashed R, Raziee L. The effects of bracket removal on enamel. Aust Orthod J. 2008; 24(2): 110-5[PubMed]
  • 26. Bishara SE, Fonseca JM, Boyer DB. The use of debonding pliers in the removal of ceramic brackets: force levels and enamel cracks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108(3): 242-8[PubMed]
  • 27. Zachrisson YO, Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Surface preparation for orthodontic bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109(4): 420-30[PubMed]
  • 28. Bishara SE, Olsen ME, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR. Comparison of the debonding characteristics of two innovative ceramic bracket designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116(1): 86-92[PubMed]
  • 29. D'Attilio M, Traini T, Di Iorio D, Varvara G, Festa F, Tecco S. Shear bond strength, bond failure, and scanning electron microscopy analysis of a new flowable composite for orthodontic use. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(3): 410-5[DOI][PubMed]
  • 30. 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(1): 25-32[DOI][PubMed]
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:

Author(s):

Article(s):

Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments