Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the area and volume of remaining cement after lingual and buccal multibracket appliance debonding. Further, the area and volume of cement remaining and the area and volume of enamel were also analyzed using a morphometric digital measurement technique. Ten buccal and 10 lingual multibracket appliances were cemented in 20 extracted teeth embedded into an epoxy resin model simulating a dental arch. The models were scanned before bonding the lingual and buccal multibracket appliances, after debonding the lingual and buccal multibracket appliances, and after polishing the remaining cement. Afterwards, the standard tessellation language (STL) digital files were aligned, segmented, and realigned by using engineer morphometry software. A comparative analysis was performed using Student’s t test statistical analysis. Lingual appliances showed statistically significantly (p < 0.001) less area (7.07 ± 4.85 mm2) and volume (0.87 ± 1.34 mm3) of remaining cement than the area (21.99 ± 4.18 mm2) and volume (p = 0.002) (3.48 ± 0.96 mm3) of buccal appliances. Moreover, lingual appliances showed statistically significantly (p = 0.001) less area (4.48 ± 3.08 mm2) and volume (0.13 ± 0.15 mm3) of remaining cement after polishing than the area (12.22 ± 5.98 mm2) and volume (p = 0.004) (0.70 ± 0.56 mm3) of buccal appliances. Lingual multibracket appliance therapy leads to less area and volume of cement remaining after multibracket appliance debonding and less area and volume of cement remaining after cement polishing than buccal multibracket appliance therapy; however, the area and volume of enamel removed after cement polishing were similar between both lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies.
Highlights
This article is an open access articleFixed multibracket appliances are a type of therapy widely used in orthodontics
Of remaining cement after lingual and buccal multibracket appliance debonding are displayed in Table 1 and Figure 5
The results presented in this study reject the null hypothesis (H0) stating that no difdifference exists between the area and volume of remaining cement after lingual and buccal ference exists between the area and volume of remaining cement after lingual and buccal multibracket appliance debonding and between the area and volume of remaining multibracket appliance debonding and between the area and volume of remaining cement after cement polishing of the lingual and buccal multibracket appliance therapies
Summary
Fixed multibracket appliances are a type of therapy widely used in orthodontics. Lingual multibracket appliance therapy has shown the advantages of being invisible, having a lower incidence of white spot lesions, and having smaller interbracket distances [1]. Multibracket appliance therapy has shown a higher risk of developing white spot lesions related to biofilm associated with poor hygiene. Lingual multibracket appliance therapy has shown some disadvantages, such as worse accessibility concerning the lingual/palatal surfaces, irregularities in the anatomy of lingual surfaces [4], and the worst dissolution of enamel prisms during enamel conditioning with etching agents [5]. The success of orthodontic treatment depends on obtaining ideal shear bond strength (SBS) between the fixed multibracket appliances and the enamel surfaces, which depends on the inner surface design of the fixed multibracket appliances, the type of mesh of the inner surface design of the fixed multibracket appliances, the size and shape of the fixed multibracket appliances, and the preconditioning of the enamel surfaces [6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
