Dentistry, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh 786002, Assam, India.
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh 786002, Assam, India.
ScientificWorldJournal. 2021 May 6;2021:5561040. doi: 10.1155/2021/5561040. eCollection 2021.
The current study includes 80 extracted premolars of human from the patient visiting for orthodontic treatment of Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences, Karnataka, India. The brackets were debonded using four different methods. The enamel surface damage after the procedure was assessed with the Enamel Surface Index (ESI); similarly, the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score was used to determine the adhesive residual deposit. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to visualize better microporosities and micromechanical retention of adhesive remnants on the enamel surface. The normality of the data was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Depending upon the normality test result, the one-way ANOVA test or Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test the mean ESI and mean ARI differences among different debonding methods along with the appropriate post hoc tests. The necessary ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the institute.
The ultrasonic scaler (US) technique led to more significant enamel surface damage, with 13 (65%) samples in the ESI scores III and IV against the satisfactory surface in 2 (10%) samples with the ligature cutter (LC) technique (ESI-I) reflecting LC as a better technique. The ESI scores (III and IV) for debonding plier (DP) and thermal method (TM) reflected a higher value in 12 (60%) and 10 (50%) samples and caused more damage to the enamel surface as compared to the LC technique. The ARI score was highest (ARI-1 = 40%) with the LC technique, followed by the US (ARI-1 = 20%), TM (ARI-1 = 15%), and DP (ARI-1 = 5%) methods. We have observed a significant association ( value <0.05) of the ARI score among four different debonding ways in terms of each tooth's residual adhesive after the bracket removal.
The result establishes the LC technique as a more acceptable one as it causes minimal harm to the debonded surface. The adhesive left on the debonded area is also minimum as compared to the other three methods tested. Therefore, it can be suggested as an ideal method.
本研究纳入了 80 颗来自印度卡纳塔克邦 Coorg 牙科研究所接受正畸治疗患者的人磨牙。使用四种不同的方法对托槽进行去粘结。用牙釉质表面指数（ESI）评估操作后的牙釉质表面损伤情况；同样，使用黏附残留指数（ARI）评分来确定黏附残留量。扫描电子显微镜（SEM）用于更好地观察牙釉质表面黏附残留的微孔和机械保持。数据的正态性使用 Kolmogorov-Smirnov 检验进行检验。根据正态性检验结果，使用单向方差分析或 Kruskal-Wallis 检验来检验不同去粘结方法之间的平均 ESI 和平均 ARI 差异，并进行适当的事后检验。必要的伦理批准从机构的伦理委员会获得。
超声洁牙机（US）技术导致牙釉质表面损伤更显著，ESI 评分 III 和 IV 级的样本有 13 个（65%），而结扎线切割器（LC）技术的满意表面的样本有 2 个（10%）（ESI-I）表明 LC 是一种更好的技术。去粘结钳（DP）和热法（TM）的 ESI 评分（III 和 IV）反映出 12 个（60%）和 10 个（50%）样本的数值更高，对牙釉质表面的损伤更大，与 LC 技术相比。ARI 评分最高（ARI-1=40%）的是 LC 技术，其次是 US（ARI-1=20%）、TM（ARI-1=15%）和 DP（ARI-1=5%）方法。我们观察到在去除托槽后，四种不同去粘结方式中，每颗牙齿残留黏附剂的 ARI 评分之间存在显著关联（ 值<0.05）。
结果表明 LC 技术是一种更可接受的方法，因为它对去粘结表面的损伤最小。与测试的其他三种方法相比，在去粘结区域留下的黏附剂也最少。因此，可以建议将其作为一种理想的方法。
