English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of the present study was to compare the area and volume of remaining cement after lingual and buccal multibracket appliance debonding. Further, the area and volume of cement remaining and the area and volume of enamel were also analyzed using a morphometric digital measurement technique. Ten buccal and 10 lingual multibracket appliances were cemented in 20 extracted teeth embedded into an epoxy resin model simulating a dental arch. The models were scanned before bonding the lingual and buccal multibracket appliances, after debonding the lingual and buccal multibracket appliances, and after polishing the remaining cement. Afterwards, the standard tessellation language (STL) digital files were aligned, segmented, and realigned by using engineer morphometry software. A comparative analysis was performed using Student’s t test statistical analysis. Lingual appliances showed statistically significantly (p &lt; 0.001) less area (7.07 ± 4.85 mm2) and volume (0.87 ± 1.34 mm3) of remaining cement than the area (21.99 ± 4.18 mm2) and volume (p = 0.002) (3.48 ± 0.96 mm3) of buccal appliances. Moreover, lingual appliances showed statistically significantly (p = 0.001) less area (4.48 ± 3.08 mm2) and volume (0.13 ± 0.15 mm3) of remaining cement after polishing than the area (12.22 ± 5.98 mm2) and volume (p = 0.004) (0.70 ± 0.56 mm3) of buccal appliances. Lingual multibracket appliance therapy leads to less area and volume of cement remaining after multibracket appliance debonding and less area and volume of cement remaining after cement polishing than buccal multibracket appliance therapy; however, the area and volume of enamel removed after cement polishing were similar between both lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies.

Area and Volume of Remaining Cement and Enamel after Removal and Polishing of Buccal or Lingual Multibracket Appliances