Open AccessEnamel Surface Damage following Debonding of Ceramic Brackets: A Hospital-Based Study
Author(s) -
Neelutpal Bora,
Putul Mahanta,
Deepjyoti Kalita,
Sangeeta Deka,
Ranjumoni Konwar,
Chimanjita Phukan
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
the scientific world journal/thescientificworldjournal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.453
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 2356-6140
pISSN - 1537-744X
DOI - 10.1155/2021/5561040
Subject(s) - enamel paint , materials science , adhesive , dentistry , composite material , scanning electron microscope , premolar , medicine , molar , layer (electronics)
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.