Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 2/2011

01-04-2011 | Original article

The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding

Authors: D.F. Baumann, Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. L. Brauchli, H. van Waes

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Bracket bonding has been a major advance in orthodontic treatment. However, the method of debonding can lead to diverse problems such as enamel fractures, enamel loss and enamel scratching. In this clinical investigation we aimed to evaluate the influence of wearing dental loupes on enamel damage during the debonding procedure.

Material and Methods

22 consecutive patients were randomly assigned in a split-mouth study to evaluate adhesive removal with and without the use of dental loupes (2.5×, LED headlight). Tooth replicas in epoxy resin were made from silicone impressions. Electron microscopic images (50× magnification) of 394 buccal enamel surfaces were evaluated according to an enamel damage index (EDI), line angle grooves (LAG) and composite residues (CR) on anterior teeth, premolars and molars.

Results

The EDI revealed highly significant advantages for debonding with dental loupes, with which the EDI was significantly higher for molars, while still less than without dental loupes. We detected no differences between the tooth groups without dental loupes. We found significantly fewer LAG on anterior teeth debonded with dental loupes. CR were fewer in the dental loupes group, and we noted no significant differences between the tooth groups.

Conclusions

Dental loupes affect the quality of the debonding procedure, resulting in less enamel damage and composite residue, as well as fewer LAG compared to the control group. We therefore strongly recommend the use of dental loupes in orthodontic debonding procedures.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Laamey PJ, Lynch E (2007) 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 131:301.e9–301.e15 Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Laamey PJ, Lynch E (2007) 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 131:301.e9–301.e15
2.
go back to reference Brown CR, Way DC (1978) Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Orthod 74:663–671PubMedCrossRef Brown CR, Way DC (1978) Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Orthod 74:663–671PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Caspersen I (1977) Residual acrylic adhesive after removal of plastic orthodontic brackets: a scanning electron microscopic study. Am J Orthod 71:637–650CrossRef Caspersen I (1977) Residual acrylic adhesive after removal of plastic orthodontic brackets: a scanning electron microscopic study. Am J Orthod 71:637–650CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Christensen GJ (2003) Magnification in dentistry: useful tool or another gimmick? J Am Dent Assoc 134:1647–1650PubMed Christensen GJ (2003) Magnification in dentistry: useful tool or another gimmick? J Am Dent Assoc 134:1647–1650PubMed
5.
go back to reference Diedrich P (1981) Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: a study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 79:500–522PubMedCrossRef Diedrich P (1981) Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: a study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 79:500–522PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference DIN Standard 6580 (n d) Terminology of chip removing; movements and geometry of the chip removing process: DIN Group, German Institute for Standardization, Berlin, Germany DIN Standard 6580 (n d) Terminology of chip removing; movements and geometry of the chip removing process: DIN Group, German Institute for Standardization, Berlin, Germany
7.
go back to reference Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M (2004) Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod 26:333–338PubMedCrossRef Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M (2004) Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod 26:333–338PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Forgie AH, Pine CM, Pitts NB (2001) Restoration removal with and without the aid of magnification. J Oral Rehabil 28:309–313PubMedCrossRef Forgie AH, Pine CM, Pitts NB (2001) Restoration removal with and without the aid of magnification. J Oral Rehabil 28:309–313PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Friedman MJ, Mora AF, Schmidt R (1999) Microscope-assisted precision dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent 20:723–728, 730–731, 735–736, quiz737PubMed Friedman MJ, Mora AF, Schmidt R (1999) Microscope-assisted precision dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent 20:723–728, 730–731, 735–736, quiz737PubMed
10.
go back to reference Friedman MJ (2004) Magnification in a restorative dental practice: from loupes to microscopes. Compend Contin Educ Dent 25:48, 50, 53–55PubMed Friedman MJ (2004) Magnification in a restorative dental practice: from loupes to microscopes. Compend Contin Educ Dent 25:48, 50, 53–55PubMed
11.
go back to reference Hannemann M, Diedrich P (1986) Der Einsatz des Prophy-Jet®-Gerätes zur Schmelzpolitur nach der Bracketentfernung. Fortschr Kieferorthop 47:317–326PubMedCrossRef Hannemann M, Diedrich P (1986) Der Einsatz des Prophy-Jet®-Gerätes zur Schmelzpolitur nach der Bracketentfernung. Fortschr Kieferorthop 47:317–326PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hong YH, Lew KK (1995) Quantitative and qualitative assessment of enamel surface following five composite removal methods after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod 17:121–128PubMed Hong YH, Lew KK (1995) Quantitative and qualitative assessment of enamel surface following five composite removal methods after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod 17:121–128PubMed
13.
go back to reference Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ (2004) Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:717–724PubMedCrossRef Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ (2004) Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:717–724PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Howell S, Weekes WT (1990) An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Aust Dent J 35:245–252PubMedCrossRef Howell S, Weekes WT (1990) An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Aust Dent J 35:245–252PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS et al (2007) Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: a 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:71–76PubMedCrossRef Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS et al (2007) Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: a 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:71–76PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Krell KV, Courey JM, Bishara SE (1993) Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:258–266PubMedCrossRef Krell KV, Courey JM, Bishara SE (1993) Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:258–266PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lussi A, Kronenberg O, Megert B (2003) The effect of magnification on the iatrogenic damage to adjacent tooth surfaces during class II preparation. J Dent 31:291–296PubMedCrossRef Lussi A, Kronenberg O, Megert B (2003) The effect of magnification on the iatrogenic damage to adjacent tooth surfaces during class II preparation. J Dent 31:291–296PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Maillet JP, Millar AM, Burke JM et al (2008) Effect of magnification loupes on dental hygiene student posture. J Dent Educ 72:33–44PubMed Maillet JP, Millar AM, Burke JM et al (2008) Effect of magnification loupes on dental hygiene student posture. J Dent Educ 72:33–44PubMed
19.
go back to reference Mannerberg F (1968) Appearance of tooth surface of teeth showing dental fluorosis as observed by shadowed replicas. Odontol Revy 19:271–291PubMed Mannerberg F (1968) Appearance of tooth surface of teeth showing dental fluorosis as observed by shadowed replicas. Odontol Revy 19:271–291PubMed
21.
go back to reference Newman GV, Facq JM (1971) The effects of adhesive systems on tooth surfaces. Am J Orthod 59:67–76PubMedCrossRef Newman GV, Facq JM (1971) The effects of adhesive systems on tooth surfaces. Am J Orthod 59:67–76PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Øgaard B (2001) Oral microbiological changes, long term enamel alterations due to decalcification and caries prophylactic aspects. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T (eds) Orthodontic materials: scientific and clinical aspects. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 124–39 Øgaard B (2001) Oral microbiological changes, long term enamel alterations due to decalcification and caries prophylactic aspects. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T (eds) Orthodontic materials: scientific and clinical aspects. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 124–39
23.
go back to reference Oliver RG, Griffiths J (1992) Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding – time taken and surface enamel appearance. Br J Orthod 19:131–137PubMed Oliver RG, Griffiths J (1992) Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding – time taken and surface enamel appearance. Br J Orthod 19:131–137PubMed
24.
go back to reference Özer T, Başaran G, Kama JD (2010) Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:368–374PubMedCrossRef Özer T, Başaran G, Kama JD (2010) Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:368–374PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Radlanski RJ (2001) A new carbide finishing bur for bracket debonding. J Orofac Orthop 62:296–304PubMedCrossRef Radlanski RJ (2001) A new carbide finishing bur for bracket debonding. J Orofac Orthop 62:296–304PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Schuler FS, Van Waes H (2003) SEM-evaluation of enamel surfaces after removal of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Dent 16:390–394PubMed Schuler FS, Van Waes H (2003) SEM-evaluation of enamel surfaces after removal of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Dent 16:390–394PubMed
27.
go back to reference Sims AP, Roberts-Harry TJ, Roberts-Harry DP (1993) The incidence and prevention of ocular injuries in orthodontic practice. Br J Orthod 20:339–343PubMed Sims AP, Roberts-Harry TJ, Roberts-Harry DP (1993) The incidence and prevention of ocular injuries in orthodontic practice. Br J Orthod 20:339–343PubMed
28.
go back to reference Staribratova-Reister K, Jost-Brinkmann PG (2004) Bonding and debonding characteristics of APC-plus clarity brackets compared to APC clarity brackets. World J Orthod 5:312–316PubMed Staribratova-Reister K, Jost-Brinkmann PG (2004) Bonding and debonding characteristics of APC-plus clarity brackets compared to APC clarity brackets. World J Orthod 5:312–316PubMed
29.
go back to reference Strobl K, Bahns TL, Willham L et al (1992) Laser-aided debonding of orthodontic ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 101:152–158PubMedCrossRef Strobl K, Bahns TL, Willham L et al (1992) Laser-aided debonding of orthodontic ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 101:152–158PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Thompson RE, Way DC (1981) Enamel loss due to prophylaxis and multiple bonding/debonding of orthodontic attachments. Am J Orthod 79:282–295PubMedCrossRef Thompson RE, Way DC (1981) Enamel loss due to prophylaxis and multiple bonding/debonding of orthodontic attachments. Am J Orthod 79:282–295PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Van Waes H, Matter T, Krejci I (1997) Three-dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:666–669CrossRef Van Waes H, Matter T, Krejci I (1997) Three-dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:666–669CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Zachrisson BU, Arthun J (1979) Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 75:121–127PubMedCrossRef Zachrisson BU, Arthun J (1979) Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 75:121–127PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ (1995) The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 108:284–293PubMedCrossRef Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ (1995) The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 108:284–293PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding
Authors
D.F. Baumann
Dr. med. Dr. med. dent. L. Brauchli
H. van Waes
Publication date
01-04-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0010-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 2/2011 Go to the issue

Informationen

DGKFO-Seiten