The effects of bracket removal on enamel.
作者： Leila Raziee , Farzin Heravi , Roozbeh Rashed
DOI:
关键词: Orthodontic brackets 、 Bracket 、 Adhesive 、 Materials science 、 Dentistry 、 Enamel paint
摘要: Background: Enamel cracks, which may develop during debonding orthodontic brackets, jeopardise the integrity of enamel and detract from appearance teeth. Aim: To compare adhesive remnant scores (ARI), number, lengths directions cracks before bonding after metal brackets with three different methods. Methods: Metal were bonded a self-curing to buccal surfaces 75 recently extracted upper lower premolars. The teeth randomly divided into groups, removed either sidecutter, single-blade bracket remover or two-blade remover. compared. number ‘pronounced’ (i.e. that could be identified naked eye) ARI in each group also Results: After debonding, pronounced increased all groups (p < 0.001). There no statistically significant differences between groups. direction propagation not influenced by method used = 0.73). Conclusions: Concerns about damage caused methods justify caution. Despite widespread use these methods, it would sensible search for result less damage. (Aust Orthod J 2008; 24: 110‐115)
researchgate.net 参考文章(18)
K. S. Coups-Smith, P. E. Rossouw, K. C. Titley, Glass ionomer cements as luting agents for orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthodontist. ,vol. 73, pp. 436- 444 ,(2003) , 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0436:GICALA>2.0.CO;2
Imad Shammaa, Erdogan Gunel, Peter Ngan, Elizabeth Kao, Marcia Gladwin, Christopher Brown, Hera Kim, Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthodontist. ,vol. 69, pp. 463- 469 ,(2009) , 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0463:COBDFB>2.3.CO;2
Jon Årtun, Sven Bergland, Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment American Journal of Orthodontics. ,vol. 85, pp. 333- 340 ,(1984) , 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8
A. Coley-Smith, W.P. Rock, Distortion of metallic orthodontic brackets after clinical use and debond by two methods. Journal of Orthodontics. ,vol. 26, pp. 135- 139 ,(1999) , 10.1093/ORTHO/26.2.135
K. Zarrinnia, N.M. Eid, M.J. Kehoe, The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. ,vol. 108, pp. 284- 293 ,(1995) , 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70023-4
R. Maijer, D.C. Smith, Variables influencing the bond strength of metal orthodontic bracket bases. American Journal of Orthodontics. ,vol. 79, pp. 20- 34 ,(1981) , 10.1016/0002-9416(81)90098-1
R.G. Oliver, The effect of different methods of bracket removal onthe amount of residual adhesive American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. ,vol. 93, pp. 196- 200 ,(1988) , 10.1016/S0889-5406(88)80003-9
Paul Alexandre, James Young, James L. Sandrik, Douglas Bowman, Bond strength of three orthodontic adhesives American Journal of Orthodontics. ,vol. 79, pp. 653- 660 ,(1981) , 10.1016/0002-9416(81)90357-2
Thomas M. Graber, Orthodontics, current principles and techniques ,(1985)
Björn U. Zachrisson, Öystein Skogan, Svein Höymyhr, Enamel cracks in debonded, debanded, and orthodontically untreated teeth American Journal of Orthodontics. ,vol. 77, pp. 307- 319 ,(1980) , 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90084-6