Effects of Color-change Adhesive and Handpiece Speed after Bracket Debonding: A 3-dimensional Study
Objectives: To assess and compare adhesive remnants, enamel loss of color-change adhesive to conventional light-cured adhesive after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with low and high speed handpiece.
Materials and Methods: Eighty extracted maxillary premolars were scanned with a 3D optical scanner. 40 were bracket-bonded with color-change adhesive (CCA type) while 40 with conventional light-cured adhesive (CLA type). Brackets were debonded 24 hours after bonding. All teeth were scanned (after-debonding scan). Samples of CCA type were divided into 2 groups randomly: CCL and CCH groups consisted of 21 and 19 samples, respectively. Samples of CLA type were divided into 2 groups randomly: CLL and CLH groups consisted of 20 samples each. Adhesive remnants of CCL and CLL groups were ground by carbide burs with low speed handpiece, while those of CCH and CLH groups were ground by the same bur with high speed handpiece. Grinding time was recorded. Teeth were finally scanned (after-adhesive removal scan). After-debonding and after-adhesive removal scans were superimposed on the initial scan to quantify surface changes. The results were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis test (α =0.05).
Results: After debonding, the areas and volumes of adhesive remnants bulks for CCA type were lesser than those of CLA type with significant differences. After-adhesive removal, CCA type had enamel loss in depth and volume lesser than those of CLA type but the differences were insignificant. Low speed handpiece significantly reduced enamel loss in depth compared to high speed handpiece but the reduction in volume loss was not significant. After-adhesive removal, CCA type left lower residual adhesive than CLA type with significant differences except for CCH and CLH groups which did not show significant differences. Adhesive removal with low speed handpiece significantly left more residual adhesive thickness and volume on enamel surface than those of high speed handpiece in CLA type. Debonding procedures for CCH group was least time consuming followed by those of CLH, CCL and CLL groups respectively with significant differences.
Conclusions: The color-change adhesive showed lower residual adhesive remnant and lesser time consumption in removing residual adhesive than conventional light-cured adhesive. Low speed handpiece reduced enamel loss in depth but consumed more time in adhesive removal than those of high speed handpiece.
1. Armstrong D, Shen G, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Excess adhesive flash upon bracket placement. A typodont study comparing APC PLUS and Transbond XT. Angle Orthod 2007; 77(6): 1101-1108.
2. Bayani S, Ghassemi A, Manafi S, Delavarian M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic color-change adhesives with different light-curing times. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015; 12(3): 265-270.
3. Delavarian M, Rahimi F, Mohammadi R, Imani MM. Shear bond strength of ceramic and metal brackets bonded to enamel using color-change adhesive. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2019; 16(4): 233–238.
4. Mohebi S, Shafiee HA, Ameli N. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding with atomic force microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151(3): 521-527.
5. Ahrari F, Akbari M, Akbari J, Dabiri G. Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques. J Dent (Tehran) 2013; 10(1): 82-93.
6. Ferreira FG, Nouer DF, Silva NP, Garbui IU, Correr-Sobrinho L, Nouer PR. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18(7): 1853-1864.
7. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel - current knowledge and future perspectives - a systematic review. Med Sci Monit 2014; 20: 1991-2001.
8. Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26(3): 333-338.
9. van Waes H, Matter T, Krejci I. Three-dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112(6): 666-669.
10. Zachrisson BU, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979; 75(2): 121-127.
11. Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod 1979; 49(1): 1-10.
12. Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995; 65(2): 103-110.
13. Rouleau BD, Jr., Marshall GW, Jr., Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1982; 81(5): 423-426.
14. 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(3): 437-447.
15. Vidor MM, Felix RP, Marchioro EM, Hahn L. Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods. Dental Press J Orthod 2015; 20(2): 61-67.
16. Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E. Three-dimensional measurement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131(3): 301.e309-315.
17. Lee YK, Lim YK. Three-dimensional quantification of adhesive remnants on teeth after debonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134(4): 556-562.
18.Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34(1): 25-32.
19. Suliman SN, Trojan TM, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A. Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro. Angle Orthod 2015; 85(4): 651-656.
20. Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, Sasamoto S, Iijima M, Mizoguchi I. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J 2018; 37(4): 628-633.
21. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18(1): 27.
22. Alencar EQdSE, Nobrega MdLM, Dametto FR, Santos PBDD and Pinheiro FHdSL. Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents. Dental Press J Orthod 2016; 21(6): 43-50.
23. Pont HB, O¨ zcan M, Bagis B, Rend Y. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: An in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138(4): 387.e1-387.e9.
24. Rocha RS, Salomao FM, Silveira Machado L, Sundfeld RH, Fagundes TC. Efficacy of auxiliary devices for removal of fluorescent residue after bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 2017; 87(3): 440-447.
25. Fan XC, Chen L, Huang XF. Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17(1): 58.
26. Khatria H, Mangla R, Garg H, Gambhir R. Evaluation of enamel surface after orthodontic debonding and cleanup using different procedures: An in vitro study. J Dent Res Rev 2016; 3(3): 88-93.