Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul 1;12(7):e656-e662.
doi: 10.4317/jced.56976. eCollection 2020 Jul.

Survey on awareness and preference of ceramic bracket debonding techniques among orthodontists

Aileen Y Ngan  1 , Prashanti Bollu  1 , Kishore Chaudhry  1 , Richard Stevens  1 , Karthikeyan Subramani  1
Affiliations

Survey on awareness and preference of ceramic bracket debonding techniques among orthodontists

Aileen Y Ngan et al. J Clin Exp Dent. .

Abstract

Background: The objectives of this study was to evaluate the awareness of different ceramic bracket debonding techniques among orthodontists in the USA and the most commonly used debonding technique for ceramic bracket removal.

Material and methods: A survey on preference for debonding and awareness of debonding techniques was emailed to 2,227 members of the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO).

Results: 119 orthodontists completed the survey. 111 responses were included in the study analysis of ceramic bracket users. The most common technique used was mechanical debonding. 86.5% used a specially designed bracket removing plier from the manufacturer. Overall, there were 59.5% of surveyed orthodontists who were aware of electrothermal debonding, 73% were unaware of ultrasonic debonding and 83.8% were unaware of laser debonding. There were more orthodontists with an affiliation with an academic institution aware of electrothermal debonding (p=0.002). There also was a trend of orthodontists having no affiliation with an institution who were unaware of laser debonding (p=0.015).

Conclusions: This survey showed that the majority of orthodontists who responded to the questionnaire were unaware of alternative debonding techniques of ceramic brackets. All orthodontists who use ceramic brackets utilized mechanical debonding technique. Key words:Orthodontic ceramic brackets, mechanical, electrothermal, ultrasonic, laser debonding.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pie charts depicting the percentage of (A) ceramic bracket users amongst orthodontists who completed the survey, (B) most commonly used mechanical debonding plier, and (C) percentage of various brands of ceramic brackets used by orthodontists.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Clinical and practice management reasons why orthodontists choose not to use alternative debonding techniques like (A) Ultrasonic (B) Laser, and (C) Electrothermal.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: something old, something new, a review. Seminars in orthodontics. 1997;3:178–88. - PubMed
    1. Feldner JC, Sarkar NK, Sheridan JJ, Lancaster DM. In vitro torque-deformation characteristics of orthodontic polycarbonate brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;106:265–72. - PubMed
    1. Choudhary G, Gill V, Reddy YNN, Sanadhya S, Aapaliya P, Sharma N. Comparison of the Debonding Characteristics of Conventional and New Debonding Instrument used for Ceramic, Composite and Metallic Brackets - An Invitro Study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR. 2014;8:ZC53–ZC5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Karamouzos A, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA. Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112:34–40. - PubMed
    1. Flores DA, Caruso JM, Scott GE, Jeiroudi MT. The fracture strength of ceramic brackets: a comparative study. The Angle orthodontist. 1990;60:269–76. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources