Journal of Contemporary Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Enamel Micro-cracks Observed before Bonding and after Debonding of Various Types of Ceramic Brackets: A SEM Study

Amol Mhatre, Prateek Daga, VK Ravindranath, Girish R Karandikar, Vivek J Patni, Astha Namdhari, Aarti Madhaswar

Keywords : Adhesive remnant index, Ceramic brackets, Debonding, Enamel damage

Citation Information : Mhatre A, Daga P, Ravindranath V, Karandikar GR, Patni VJ, Namdhari A, Madhaswar A. Comparative Evaluation of Enamel Micro-cracks Observed before Bonding and after Debonding of Various Types of Ceramic Brackets: A SEM Study. J Contemp Dent 2018; 8 (3):125-134.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10031-1236

License: CC BY-ND 3.0

Published Online: 01-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Introduction: Enamel integrity gets affected by the presence of micro-cracks in it and they can further create problems like stains and the accumulation of plaque on the fractured surfaces. Avoiding such iatrogenic damage to the enamel surface has been a constant challenge even with the use of metal brackets. Creating a fracture line in the base of the bracket leads to the formation of a ‘weak zone'. This allows the bracket to collapse in a mesiodistal direction when debonding forces are applied rather than shattering the bracket into tiny multiple pieces. Thus, removal of the bracket having such a ‘weak zone' created by making a groove in it before bracket removal arguably leaves the major amount of resin on the tooth and therefore causes less stress on enamel. This study plans to evaluate the expected beneficial effect of ‘scoring’ the base of the ceramic bracket before bracket removal. Aim: To evaluate and compare the occurrence of micro-cracks in enamel observed before bonding and after debonding of various types of ceramic brackets. Results: The difference between scored monocrystalline ceramic brackets and unscored monocrystalline ceramic brackets of both the AO and Ormco groups is not significant statistically (p = 0.096). There is a significant difference in scoring of ARI and enamel micro-cracks development. The difference of length and width between the groups (A and B) is statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Post debonding, there was no difference significantly in the length or width of enamel micro-cracks between AO monocrystalline ceramic brackets (group A) and Ormco monocrystalline ceramic brackets (group B).

PDF Share
  1. Kitahara-Céia FMF, Mucha JN, dos Santos PAM. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics [Internet]. Elsevier BV; 2008 Oct;134(4):548-555.
  2. Theodorakopoulou LP, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, Lacefield Jr W. Evaluation of the debonding characteristics of 2 ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2004 Mar 1;125(3):329-336.
  3. Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod 1997;3:178-188.
  4. Kusy RP. Morphology of the polycrystalline alumina bracket and its relationship to fracture toughness and strength. Angle Orthod 1988;58:197-203.
  5. Irma Dumbryte, Laura Linkeviciene, Mangirdas Malinauskas, Tomas Linkevicius, Vytaute Peciuliene, Kristupas Tikuisis. Evaluation of enamel cracks characteristics after removal of metal brackets in adult patients Eur J Orthod 2013;35:317-322
  6. Shahabi M, Heravi F, Mokhber N, Karamad R, Bishara SE. Effects on shear bond strength and the enamel surface with an enamel bonding agent. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137: 375-378.
  7. Tecco S, Tetè S, D'Attilio M, Festa F. Enamel surface after debracketing of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable orthodontic composite. A comparison with a traditional orthodontic composite resin. Minerva Stomatol 2008; 57:81-94.
  8. Lamper T, Ilie N, Huth KC, Rudzki I, Wichelhaus A, Paschos E. Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:313-319.
  9. Elekdag-Turk S, Isci D, Ozkalayci N, Turk T. Debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different conditioning methods. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31:84-89.
  10. Kitahara-Ceia FM, Mucha JN, Marques dos Santos PA. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:548-555.
  11. Sorel O, El Alam R, Chagneau F, Cathelineau G. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:260-266.
  12. Zachrisson BU, Buyukyilmaz T. Bonding in orthodontics. In:Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KW, editors. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. St Louis: Elsevier-Mosby; 2005;612-619.
  13. Chen CS, Hsu ML, Chang KD, Kuang SH, Chen PT, Gung YW. Failure analysis: enamel fracture after debonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1071-1077.
  14. Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon J, Warren JJ. Enamel cracks and ceramic brackets failure during debonding in vitro. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1078-1083.
  15. Ahrari F, Heravi F, Fekrazad R, Farzanegan F, Nakhaei S. Does ultra-pulse CO(2) laser reduce the risk of enamel damage during debonding of ceramic brackets? Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:567-574.
  16. Dumbryte I, Jonavicius T, Linkeviciene L, Linkevicius T, Peciuliene V, Malinauskas M. The prognostic value of visually assessing enamel microcracks: do debonding and adhesive removal contribute to their increase? Angle Orthod 2016;86:437-447.
  17. Silveira GS, Bittencourt LP, Mucha JN. Scoring of ceramic bracket bases for easier debonding. Journal of clinical orthodontics: JCO. 2014 Jul;48(7):441-442.
  18. Maskeroni AJ, Meyrs CE, Lorton L. Ceramic bracket bonding: a comparison of bond strength with polyacrylic acid and phosphoric acid enamel conditioning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:168-175.
  19. Viazis AD, Cavanaugh G, Bevis RR. Bond strength of ceramic bracket under shear stress: an in vitro report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:214-221.
  20. Bordeau FM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Comparative evaluation of ceramic bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;105:552-560.
  21. Wang WN, Meng CL, Torng TH. Bond strength: a comparison between chemical coated and mechanical interlock bases of ceramic and metal brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:374-381.
  22. Guan G, Takano-Yamamoto T, Miyamoto M, Hattori T, Ishikawa K, Suzukil K. Shear bond strengths of orthodontic plastic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:438-443.
  23. Swartz ML. Ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1988;22:82-88.
  24. Krell KV, Courey JM, Bishara SE. Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques: enamel loss and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993;103:258-266.
  25. Bishara S, Trulove T. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study, Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;98:263-273
  26. Sheridan JJ, Brawley G, Hastings J. Electrothermal debracketing: part I, an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1986;89:21-27.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.