The force levels required to mechanically debond ceramic brackets: an in vitro comparative study
- PMID: 10920565
- DOI: 10.1093/ejo/22.3.327
The force levels required to mechanically debond ceramic brackets: an in vitro comparative study
Abstract
The in vitro force levels generated by four differing methods of mechanical debonding techniques for ceramic brackets, using debonding pliers, were measured. The forces generated using wide (method W) and narrow blades (method N) were compared with those generated using a diagonally opposite corner application of the wide blades (method C) and incisal-gingival application of a pair of pointed blades (method P). Chemically retained ceramic brackets (Transcend) were bonded to bovine teeth using a filled, two-paste, chemically cured composite (Concise). After 24 hours storage at 37 degrees C in water, each specimen was subjected to one of the four mechanical debonding methods in a custom-built jig, simulating the clinical application of conventional debonding pliers. A one-way ANOVA with a Tukey's honestly significant difference test revealed statistically significant differences in debonding strengths between the four methods at the 0.05 level of significance. The mean debonding strength generated by method C was 40 and 25 per cent lower than that for methods W and N, respectively. Scoring of the adhesive remnant index (ARI) revealed that the predominant bond failure site was at the bracket/adhesive interface for all groups. Macroscopically, no enamel damage or bracket fractures were observed.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of the debonding characteristics of two innovative ceramic bracket designs.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Jul;116(1):86-92. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70307-0. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999. PMID: 10393585
-
Evaluation of debonding characteristics of a new collapsible ceramic bracket.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Nov;112(5):552-9. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70083-0. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997. PMID: 9387843
-
Debonding forces applied to ceramic brackets simulating clinical conditions.Angle Orthod. 1994;64(4):277-82. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0277:DFATCB>2.0.CO;2. Angle Orthod. 1994. PMID: 7978522
-
Ceramic brackets and the need to develop national standards.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 May;117(5):595-7. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70212-5. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. PMID: 10799127 Review. No abstract available.
-
What is the safest method of orthodontic debonding - a systematic review of the literature.Folia Med Cracov. 2023 Oct 30;63(3):133-156. doi: 10.24425/fmc.2023.147219. Folia Med Cracov. 2023. PMID: 38310534
Cited by
-
The Effects of Eucalyptus Oil, Glutathione, and Lemon Essential Oil on the Debonding Force, Adhesive Remnant Index, and Enamel Surface During Debonding of Ceramic Brackets.Turk J Orthod. 2023 Mar 21;36(1):46-53. doi: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0226. Turk J Orthod. 2023. PMID: 36967614 Free PMC article.
-
Influence of different tooth types on the bond strength of two orthodontic adhesive systems.Eur J Orthod. 2008 Aug;30(4):407-12. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn006. Eur J Orthod. 2008. PMID: 18678760 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative Study of Transmission of 2940 nm Wavelength in Six Different Aesthetic Orthodontic Brackets.Dent J (Basel). 2023 Mar 1;11(3):67. doi: 10.3390/dj11030067. Dent J (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36975563 Free PMC article.
-
CO2 laser as auxiliary in the debonding of ceramic brackets.Lasers Med Sci. 2015 Sep;30(7):1835-41. doi: 10.1007/s10103-014-1688-z. Epub 2014 Nov 20. Lasers Med Sci. 2015. PMID: 25410302
-
Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces.Materials (Basel). 2020 Nov 17;13(22):5197. doi: 10.3390/ma13225197. Materials (Basel). 2020. PMID: 33213042 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources