Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to undertake a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of changes on enamel surfaces after debonding of brackets followed by finishing procedures, using a high-resolution three-dimensional optical profiler and to investigate the accuracy of the technique.

Materials and methods

The labial surfaces of 36 extracted upper central incisors were examined. Before bonding, the enamel surfaces were subjected to profilometry, recording four amplitude parameters. Brackets were then bonded using two types of light-cured orthodontic adhesive: composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Finishing was performed by three different methods: pumice on a rubber cup, fine and ultrafine aluminum oxide discs, and microfine diamond cups followed by silicon carbide brushes. The samples were subsequently re-analyzed by profilometry.

Results

Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.05) and a posteriori Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.0167) revealed a significant reduction of enamel roughness when diamond cups followed by silicon carbide brushes were used to finish surfaces that had remnants of resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive and when pumice was used to finish surfaces that had traces of composite resin. Enamel loss was minimal.

Conclusions

The 3D optical profilometry technique was able to provide accurate qualitative and quantitative assessment of changes on the enamel surface after debonding.

Clinical relevance

Morphological changes in the topography of dental surfaces, especially if related to enamel loss and roughness, are of considerable clinical importance. The quantitative evaluation method used herein enables a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of orthodontic bonding on teeth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edblad T, Hoffman M, Hakeberg M, Ortengren U, Milledning P, Wennerberg A (2009) Micro-topography of dental enamel and root cementum. Swed Dent J 33(1):41–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdelnaby YL, Al-Wakeel EES (2010) Effect of early orthodontic force on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 138(2):208–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Al Shamsi A, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E (2007) Three-dimensional measurement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 131(3):301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Osório R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F (1998) Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child 65(5):313–317, 354

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinşahin A, Karabulut E (2006) Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod 76(2):314–321

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B (2010) Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod 80(6):1081–1088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. David VA, Staley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR (2002) Remnant amount and cleanup for adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 121(3):291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ (2004) Enamel loss during bonding, debonding and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 126(6):717–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS, Ahn HS, Ro JH, Kim YD (2007) Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: a 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132(1):71–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L (1977) Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application. Am J Orthod 71(6):651–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fjeld M, Øgaard B (2006) Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel surfaces exposed to 3 orthodontic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 130(5):575–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Waes H, Matter T, Krejci I (1997) Three-dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 112(6):666–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Field J, Waterhouse P, German M (2010) Quantifying and qualifying surface changes on dental hard tissues in vitro. J Dent 38(3):182–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jandt KD (2001) Atomic force microscopy of biomaterials surfaces and interfaces. Surf Sci 491(3):303–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zapletalová Z, Kubínek R, Vůjtek M, Novotný R (2004) Examination of dentin surface using AFM (our experience). Acta Med (Hradec Kralove) 47(4):343–346

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cehreli ZC, Lakshmipathy M, Yazici R (2008) Effect of different splint removal techniques on the surface roughness of human enamel: a three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Dent Traumatol 24(2):177–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baysan A, Anderson P (2009) Non-contact optical profilometry for detection of surface changes of hydroxyapatite discs during acid attack. Caries Res 43:187

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B (2012) Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 34(1):25–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Flores AR, Sáez EG, Barceló F (1999) Metallic bracket to enamel bonding with a photopolymerizable resin-reinforced glass ionomer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 116(5):514–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Correr Sobrinho L, Correr GM, Consani S, Sinhoreti MAC, Consani RLX (2002) Influência do tempo pós-fixação na resistência ao cisalhamento de braquetes colados com diferentes materiais. Pesqui Odontol Bras 16(1):43–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zachrisson BU (1977) A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 71(2):173–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO (1978) Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 74(1):62–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Schiffer A, Miethke RR (1992) The effect of adhesive-layer thickness on bond strength. J Clin Orthod 26(11):718–720

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eliades T, Brantley WA (2000) The inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod 22(1):13–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kao EC, Eliades T, Rezvan E, Johnston WM (1995) Torsional bond strength and failure pattern of ceramic brackets bonded to composite resin laminate veneers. Eur J Orthod 17(6):533–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eliades T, Viazis AD, Eliades G (1991) Bonding of ceramic brackets to enamel: morphologic and structural considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 99(4):369–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Arici S, Caniklioglu CM, Arici N, Ozer M, Oguz B (2005) Adhesive thickness effects on the bond strength of a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Angle Orthod 75(2):254–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Guzman UA, Jerrold L, Vig PS, Abdelkarim A (2013) Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets. Prog Orthod 14:39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Santos Pinto A, Santos Pinto L, Simplício H, Bonifácio KC, Nunes VM (2001) Remoção de resina residual do esmalte dentário após a descolagem de acessórios ortodônticos: avaliação de duas técnicas. Ortodon Gaúch 5(1):42–48

    Google Scholar 

  30. Oliver RG (1988) The effect of different methods of bracket removal on the amount of residual adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 93(3):196–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rouleau Junior BD, Marshall Junior GW, Cooley RO (1982) Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 81(5):423–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Retief DH, Denys FR (1979) Finishing of enamel surface after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod 49(1):1–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Campbell PM (1995) Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 65(2):103–110

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Howell S, Weekes WT (1990) An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Aust Dent J 35(3):245–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Burapavong V, Marshall GW, Apfel DA, Perry HT (1978) Enamel surface characteristics on removal of bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 74(2):176–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is based on a thesis submitted to the graduate faculty, São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Dental Research Center, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the M.S. degree. Special thanks are due to Dr. Marcello Montagnani, specialist in precision metrology, and to Taylor Hobson Ltd. for kindly granting permission to use the three-dimensional optical profiler system.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. São Leopoldo Mandic College of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Campinas, Brazil

    Fabiano G. Ferreira, Darcy F. Nouer, Nelson P. Silva, Ivana U. Garbui & Paulo R. A. Nouer

  2. Piracicaba College of Dentistry-UNICAMP, Department of Dental Materials, Campinas, Brazil

    Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho

  3. São Leopoldo Mandic College of Dentistry, 13 José Rocha Junqueira Street, P.O. Box 13045-755, Campinas, SP, Brazil

    Fabiano G. Ferreira

Authors
  1. Fabiano G. Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darcy F. Nouer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nelson P. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ivana U. Garbui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paulo R. A. Nouer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabiano G. Ferreira.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferreira, F.G., Nouer, D.F., Silva, N.P. et al. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Clin Oral Invest 18, 1853–1864 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1159-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1159-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation