Grazioli Guillermo, Hardan Louis, Bourgi Rim, Nakanishi Leina, Amm Elie, Zarow Maciej, Jakubowicz Natalia, Proc Patrycja, Cuevas-Suárez Carlos Enrique, Lukomska-Szymanska Monika
Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Universidad de la República. Av. General Las Heras 1925, Montevideo 11300, Uruguay.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Saint-Joseph University, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon.
Materials (Basel). 2021 Oct 15;14(20):6120. doi: 10.3390/ma14206120.
Debonding of orthodontic brackets is a common occurrence during orthodontic treatment. Therefore, the best option for treating debonded brackets should be indicated. This study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of rebonded brackets after different residual adhesive removal methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, and BVS databases were screened up to December 2020. Bond strength comparisons were made considering the method used for removing the residual adhesive on the bracket base. A total of 12 studies were included for the meta-analysis. Four different adhesive removal methods were identified: sandblasting, laser, mechanical grinding, and direct flame. When compared with new orthodontic metallic brackets, bond strength of debonded brackets after air abrasion ( = 0.006), mechanical grinding ( = 0.007), and direct flame ( < 0.001) was significantly lower. The use of an erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser showed similar shear bond strength (SBS) values when compared with those of new orthodontic brackets ( = 0.71). The Er:YAG laser could be considered an optimal method for promoting the bond of debonded orthodontic brackets. Direct flame, mechanical grinding, or sandblasting are also suitable, obtaining clinically acceptable bond strength values.
正畸托槽脱粘是正畸治疗过程中常见的情况。因此，应指明治疗脱粘托槽的最佳选择。本研究旨在评估不同残余粘合剂去除方法后重新粘结托槽的粘结强度。本系统评价和荟萃分析是根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）声明进行的。截至2020年12月，对PubMed、科学网、考科蓝图书馆、SciELO、Scopus、LILACS、IBECS和BVS数据库进行了筛选。根据用于去除托槽基底上残余粘合剂的方法进行粘结强度比较。共有12项研究纳入荟萃分析。确定了四种不同的粘合剂去除方法：喷砂、激光、机械打磨和直接火焰。与新的正畸金属托槽相比，空气喷砂（=0.006）、机械打磨（=0.007）和直接火焰（<0.001）后脱粘托槽的粘结强度显著降低。与新的正畸托槽相比，掺铒钇铝石榴石（Er:YAG）激光的剪切粘结强度（SBS）值相似（=0.71）。Er:YAG激光可被认为是促进脱粘正畸托槽粘结的最佳方法。直接火焰、机械打磨或喷砂也适用，可获得临床上可接受的粘结强度值。
Zotero 插件