PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9795734

Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of brackets and the enamel morphology after using six methods for removal of adhesive after bracket debonding. A total of thirty-five recently extracted noncarious human premolars were used. The twin bracket Mini-Taurus was used with the Mono-Lok2 TM bonding system. Shear bond strength (MPa) was calculated. Immediately after the brackets were removed, the teeth were rinsed and dried, using an air-water syringe. The adhesive remnant index was calculated and the debonded teeth with residual adhesive material attached to the enamel surface were equally sorted in seven groups of five, as follows: Group 1. The residual adhesive was removed with a 12-blade tungsten carbide finishing bur in a high-speed handpiece, using water as the coolant. Group 2. The residual adhesive was removed with a 12-blade tungsten carbide finishing bur in a low-speed handpiece, using water as the coolant. Group 3. The residual adhesive was removed with an Arkansas stone: Dura-white stones for finishing composite in a high-speed handpiece using water as the coolant. Group 4. The residual adhesive was removed with an Arkansas stone: Dura-white stones for finishing composite in a low-speed handpiece, using water as the coolant. Group 5. The residual adhesive was removed with Sof-Lex aluminum oxide discs according to manufacturer's instructions in a low-speed handpiece, using water as the coolant. Group 6. The residual adhesive was removed with Enhance Composite Finishing Discs in a low-speed handpiece, using water as the coolant. In this group, the paste was not applied after the polishing discs. Group 7. The residual adhesive was removed with Enhance Composite Finishing Discs and Polishing Cups in a low-speed handpiece, using water as the coolant. Prisma-gloss polishing paste and ultrafine polishing paste were applied according to manufacturer's instructions. After removal of the adhesive, all teeth were evaluated with the scanning electron microscope. The results revealed a mean shear bond strength of 12.75 MPa. The higher the bond strength, the higher the percentage of ARI. The smoothest enamel surface was obtained when the Enhance system with the gloss polishing paste was used; the second smoothest enamel surface was obtained when using Sof-Lex discs. If the paste was not used with the Enhance system, the obtained surface was rougher than when using Sof-Lex discs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Osorio, M Toledano, F García-Godoy. Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9795734/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Healing substrates with mobile, particle-filled microcapsules: designing a 'repair and go' system.

We model the rolling motion of a fluid-driven, particle-filled microcapsule along a heterogeneous, adhesive substrate to determine how the release of the encapsulated nanoparticles can be harnessed to repair damage on the underlying surface. We integrate the lattice Boltzmann model for hydrodynamics and the lattice spring model for the micromechanics of elastic solids to capture the interactions between the elastic shell of the microcapsule and the surrounding fluids. A Brownian dynamics model is used to simulate the release of nanoparticles from the capsule and their diffusion into the surrounding solution. We focus on a substrate that contains a damaged region (e.g. a crack or eroded surface coating), which prevents the otherwise mobile capsule from rolling along the surface. We isolate conditions where nanoparticles released from the arrested capsule can repair the damage and thereby enable the capsules to again move along the substrate. Through these studies, we establish guidelines for designing particle-filled microcapsules that perform a 'repair and go' function and thus, can be utilized to repair damage in microchannels and microfluidic devices.

Adhesives↗

Bonding to ground versus unground enamel in fluorosed teeth.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of grinding on the bonding effectiveness of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive to fluorosed enamel. METHODS: The teeth were classified using the Thylstrup and Fejerskov index (TFI). Fluorosed teeth (TFI=5) obtained from Isparta (Turkey) and control teeth (TFI=0) obtained from Leuven (Belgium) were used. Using a depth-marking diamond bur, 0.3mm of enamel was removed from mid-buccal and mid-palatal/lingual surfaces of the teeth, whereas the area adjacent to the ground area was left unprepared. A two-step self-etch (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray) and a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Optibond FL, Kerr) were used to bond the resin composite to the ground and unground enamel. Rectangular micro-specimens were prepared using the slow-speed diamond saw and tested in tensile to determine the micro-tensile bond strength (microTBS). RESULTS: The microTBS to unground fluorosed enamel was significantly lower than to ground fluorosed enamel for Clearfil Protect Bond (15.8+/-15.2 and 45.0+/-12.4MPa, p<0.0001) and for Optibond FL (35.5+/-21.4 and 50.5+/-12.3MPa, p<0.05), respectively. In control teeth, Clearfil Protect Bond bonded better to ground enamel (p<0.01), whereas OptiBond FL exhibited a similar bonding effectiveness to ground and unground enamel (p=0.0634). SIGNIFICANCE: Preparation of enamel improved the resin-enamel bond strength in fluorosed teeth. The bonding effectiveness to unground enamel was lower in fluorosed teeth than in control teeth for the self-etch adhesive tested.

Adhesives↗