Effect of simulated debracketing on enamel damage.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: A smooth enamel surface after the removal of a bracket from a tooth is essential for both esthetic demands and the prevention of plaque accumulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate enamel damage caused by three standardized debracketing techniques.

METHODS

We established three standardized test devices based on the principles of the squeezing, shearing, and tensile testing methods, which were simulated using a How Plier (TASK 60-306), a Direct Bond Bracket Remover (TASK 60-335 T), and a Lift-Off Debracketing Instrument (3 M-Unitek 444-761), respectively. Thirty teeth in each group were evaluated after debracketing. An optical stereomicroscope and a CCD camera with a computerized image analysis system were used to ascertain the proportion of remnant adhesive area (RAE) on the enamel surface. Fractography was analyzed using a scanning electron microscope.

RESULTS

The squeezing debracketing method exhibited the highest debonding force (54.3 ± 7.0 N) and the least damage to the enamel surface (RAE = 99.5% ± 2.4%). The tensile debracketing method preserved most of the adhesive on the enamel surface (RAE = 98.7% ± 3.3%) and required the least debonding force (6.8 ± 1.2 N). However, the shearing debracketing method exhibited a significantly higher debonding force (32.0 ± 8.2 N) and smaller RAE (77.3% ± 33.5%) compared to the tensile debracketing method (p < 0.05). Three specimens appeared to have vertical fractures on their enamel prisms when using the shearing method.

CONCLUSION

With the proposed method, we conclude that the squeezing and tensile methods are acceptable for clinical use when debracketing, whereas the Direct Bond Bracket Remover may cause shearing failure, leading to a risk for enamel damage.