Introduction: The purposes of this in-vivo study were to compare the modes of failure of uncoated and adhesive precoated metal brackets by using the adhesive remnant index, and to assess the quality of the enamel surface after cleanup by using the enamel damage index. Methods: Twelve Victory brackets (group A) and 12 Victory adhesive precoated brackets (group B) (both, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded onto the maxillary second premolars of 12 volunteers. The uncoated brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive resin (3M Unitek). Replicas of the teeth were made before bonding (T0), after bracket removal (T1), and after cleanup (T2). Scanning electron microscope images of all labial enamel surfaces were taken at T0, T1, and T2, and these were evaluated according to the adhesive remnant index and the enamel damage index. Results: Evaluation of the adhesive remnant index scores with the chi-square test showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. Evaluation of the enamel damage index grades with the sign test for paired samples showed a statistically significant difference (P .01) between T0 and T2. Conclusions: Uncoated and precoated brackets exhibited similar debonding patterns. Additionally, the debonding method tested in this study did not restore the original enamel surface, although there was no clinically relevant enamel damage.

Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: An in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy.

ALESSANDRI BONETTI, GIULIO;ZANARINI, MATTEO;INCERTI PARENTI, SERENA;MARCHIONNI, SILVIA;GATTO, MARIA ROSARIA
2011

Abstract

Introduction: The purposes of this in-vivo study were to compare the modes of failure of uncoated and adhesive precoated metal brackets by using the adhesive remnant index, and to assess the quality of the enamel surface after cleanup by using the enamel damage index. Methods: Twelve Victory brackets (group A) and 12 Victory adhesive precoated brackets (group B) (both, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded onto the maxillary second premolars of 12 volunteers. The uncoated brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive resin (3M Unitek). Replicas of the teeth were made before bonding (T0), after bracket removal (T1), and after cleanup (T2). Scanning electron microscope images of all labial enamel surfaces were taken at T0, T1, and T2, and these were evaluated according to the adhesive remnant index and the enamel damage index. Results: Evaluation of the adhesive remnant index scores with the chi-square test showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. Evaluation of the enamel damage index grades with the sign test for paired samples showed a statistically significant difference (P .01) between T0 and T2. Conclusions: Uncoated and precoated brackets exhibited similar debonding patterns. Additionally, the debonding method tested in this study did not restore the original enamel surface, although there was no clinically relevant enamel damage.
Alessandri Bonetti G; Zanarini M; Incerti Parenti S; Lattuca M; Marchionni S; Gatto MR
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/106535
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 29
  • Scopus 62
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 50
social impact