Abstract
AimsPresenting a new method for direct, quantitative analysis of enamel surface. Measurement of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding molar tubes.Material and methodsBuccal surfaces of fifteen extracted human molars were directly scanned with an optic blue-light 3D scanner to the nearest 2 μm. After 20 s etching molar tubes were bonded and after 24 h storing in 0.9% saline - debonded. Then 3D scanning was repeated. Superimposition and comparison were proceeded and shape alterations of the entire objects were analyzed using specialized computer software. Residual adhesive heights as well as enamel loss depths have been obtained for the entire buccal surfaces. Residual adhesive volume and enamel loss volume have been calculated for every tooth.ResultsThe maximum height of adhesive remaining on enamel surface was 0.76 mm and the volume on particular teeth ranged from 0.047 mm3 to 4.16 mm3. The median adhesive remnant volume was 0.988 mm3. Mean depths of enamel loss for particular teeth ranged from 0.0076 mm to 0.0416 mm. Highest maximum depth of enamel loss was 0.207 mm. Median volume of enamel loss was 0.104 mm3 and maximum volume was 1.484 mm3.ConclusionsBlue-light 3D scanning is able to provide direct precise scans of the enamel surface, which can be superimposed in order to calculate shape alterations. Debonding molar tubes leaves a certain amount of adhesive remnants on the enamel, however the interface fracture pattern varies for particular teeth and areas of enamel loss are present as well.
Highlights
Bonded molar tubes cover a significant proportion of their buccal surface
The maximum height of adhesive remaining on enamel surface was 0.76 mm and the volume on particular teeth ranged from 0.047 mm3 to 4.16 mm3
Blue-light 3D scanning is able to provide direct precise scans of the enamel surface, which can be superimposed in order to calculate shape alterations
Summary
Bonded molar tubes cover a significant proportion of their buccal surface. After active treatment termination they are debonded, usually using ligature-cutting pliers.The mode of bond failure has been classified by Strattman et al [1] into four types: 1. fracture interface lying between adhesive and bracket base2. fracture interface lying between adhesive and enamel surface3. fracture interface lying partly between adhesive and enamel surface and partly within the adhesive4. fracture interface lying partly between adhesive and enamel surface, partly within the adhesive and partly between adhesive and bracket baseOne of the factors determining different modes of adhesive failure during debonding may be enamel morphology varying between tooth groups. Fracture interface lying between adhesive and bracket base. 2. fracture interface lying between adhesive and enamel surface. 3. fracture interface lying partly between adhesive and enamel surface and partly within the adhesive. 4. fracture interface lying partly between adhesive and enamel surface, partly within the adhesive and partly between adhesive and bracket base. One of the factors determining different modes of adhesive failure during debonding may be enamel morphology varying between tooth groups. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) according to Årtun and Bergland [2] is assessed according to the following criteria 0 – no adhesive left, 1 – less than half of the adhesive left, 2 – more than half of the adhesive remained, 3 – all adhesive left. Osorio et al [4] have calculated Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) as the quotient of area of residual resin on the tooth and the area of bracket base in percentage
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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
