Abstract
Background. Bracket base design is a factor influencing shear bond strength. High shear bond strength leads to enamel crack formation during debonding. The aim of this study was to compare enamel damage variations, including the number and length of enamel cracks after debonding of two different base designs. Methods. Eighty-eight extracted human premolars were randomly divided into2 groups (n=44). The teeth in each group were bonded by two types of brackets with different base designs: 80-gauge mesh design versus anchor pylon design with pylons for adhesive retention. The number and length of enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding were evaluated under an optical stereomicroscope ×40 in both groups. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the number of cracks between the two groups. ANCOVA was used for comparison of crack lengths after and before debonding in each group and between the two groups. Results. There was a significant increase in enamel crack length and numbers in each group after debonding. There was no significant difference in enamel crack numbers after debonding between the two groups, whereas the length of enamel cracks was significantly greater in anchor pylon base design after debonding. Conclusion. Bracket bases with pylon design for adhesive retention caused more iatrogenic debonding damage to enamel surface.
Highlights
Brackets are manufactured in various designs.Variability in design includes bracket material, prescription, base size, ligation type and retentive base design.[1,2] There are recommendations in the literature for enhancement of bracket mechanical retention on tooth surface by altering the retentive base design in JODDD, Vol 12, No 1 Winter 2018 order to prevent bond failure during orthodontic treatment.[3]
There was no significant difference in enamel crack numbers after debonding between the two groups, whereas the length of enamel cracks was significantly greater in anchor pylon base design after debonding
In cases of bond failure at adhesive‒enamel interface, there is a higher risk of enamel damage due to the existence of a micromechanical bond between the adhesive and enamel,[5,6] which might result in enamel cracks.[7]
Summary
Brackets are manufactured in various designs.Variability in design includes bracket material, prescription, base size, ligation type and retentive base design.[1,2] There are recommendations in the literature for enhancement of bracket mechanical retention on tooth surface by altering the retentive base design in JODDD, Vol 12, No 1 Winter 2018 order to prevent bond failure during orthodontic treatment.[3]. Bracket base design might affect bracket‒adhesive retention, which affects the type of bond breakdown.[4] During debonding procedure, bond failure may occur at: 1) between the bracket and the adhesive interface; 2) between the adhesive and enamel interface; or 3) within the adhesive.[4] In cases of bond failure at adhesive‒enamel interface, there is a higher risk of enamel damage due to the existence of a micromechanical bond between the adhesive and enamel,[5,6] which might result in enamel cracks.[7] Enamel cracks in the longterm might lead to tooth fracture, demineralization and caries development or esthetic problems.[8] if the bracket base design affects the type of bond failure, selection of brackets with various base designs might have an important role in the development of iatrogenic damages, including enamel cracks after debonding. Several authors evaluated the influence of bracket base design variations on debonding characteristics.[3,9,10]. Bracket base design is a factor influencing shear bond strength. High shear bond strength leads to enamel crack formation during debonding. The aim of this study was to compare enamel damage variations, including the number and length of enamel cracks after debonding of two different base designs
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 callMore From: Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
