Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2016; 10(02): 193-198
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.178296
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Evaluation of enamel damages following orthodontic bracket debonding in fluorosed teeth bonded with adhesion promoter

Tahreh Baherimoghadam
1   Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran
,
Sahar Akbarian
2   Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
,
Reza Rasouli
3   Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
,
Navid Naseri
4   Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate shear bond strength (SBS) of the orthodontic brackets bonded to fluorosed and nonfluorosed teeth using Light Bond with and without adhesion promoters and compare their enamel damages following debonding. Materials and Methods: In this study, 30 fluorosed (Thylstrup and Fejerskov Index = 4–5) and 30 nonfluorosed teeth were randomly distributed between two subgroups according to the bonding materials: Group 1, fluorosed teeth bonded with Light Bond; Group 2, fluorosed teeth bonded with adhesion promoters and Light Bond; Group 3, nonfluorosed teeth bonded with Light Bond; Group 4, nonfluorosed bonded with adhesion promoters and Light Bond. After bonding, the SBS of the brackets was tested with a universal testing machine. Stereomicroscopic evaluation was performed by unbiased stereology in all teeth to determine the amount of adhesive remnants and the number and length of enamel cracks before bonding and after debonding. The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance, Kruskal–Wallis, Wilcoxon Signed Rank, and Mann–Whitney test. Results: While fluorosis reduced the SBS of orthodontic bracket (P = 0.017), Enhance Locus Ceruleus LC significantly increased the SBS of the orthodontic bracket in fluorosed and nonfluorosed teeth (P = 0.039). Significant increasing in the number and length of enamel crack after debonding was found in all four groups. There were no significant differences in the length of enamel crack increased after debonding among four groups (P = 0.768) while increasing in the number of enamel cracks after debonding was significantly different among the four groups (P = 0.023). Teeth in Group 2 showed the highest enamel damages among four groups following debonding. Conclusion: Adhesion promoters could improve the bond strength of orthodontic brackets, but conservative debonding methods for decreasing enamel damages would be necessary.

Key words:

Dental debonding - dental fluorosis - orthodontic bracket
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Adanir N, Türkkahraman H, Yalçin GüngörA. Effects of adhesion promoters on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 276-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Miller RA. Bonding fluorosed teeth: New materials for old problems. J Clin Orthod 1995; 29: 424-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Adanir N, Türkkahraman H, Güngör AY. Effects of fluorosis and bleaching on shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets. Eur J Dent 2007; 1: 230-5
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 DenBesten PK. Biological mechanisms of dental fluorosis relevant to the use of fluoride supplements. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999; 27: 41-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gungor AY, Turkkahraman H, Adanir N, Alkis H. Effects of fluorosis and self etching primers on shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets. Eur J Dent 2009; 3: 173-7
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fejerskov O, Larsen MJ, Richards A, Baelum V. Dental tissue effects of fluoride. Adv Dent Res 1994; 8: 15-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Duan Y, Chen X, Wu J. Clinical comparison of bond failures using different enamel preparations of severely fluorotic teeth. J Clin Orthod 2006; 40: 152-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ermis RB, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A. et al. Bonding to ground versus unground enamel in fluorosed teeth. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1250-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Noble J, Karaiskos NE, Wiltshire WA. In vivo bonding of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel using an adhesion promotor. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 357-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Opinya GN, Pameijer CH. Tensile bond strength of fluorosed Kenyan teeth using the acid etch technique. Int Dent J 1986; 36: 225-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Al-Sugair MH, Akpata ES. Effect of fluorosis on etching of human enamel. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26: 521-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zavala-Alonso V, Aguilera-Flores R, Patiño-Marin N, Martinez-Castañon GA, Anusavice KJ, Loyola-Rodriguez JP. Nanostructure evaluation of healthy and fluorotic dentin by atomic force microscopy before and after phosphoric acid etching. Dent Mater J 2011; 30: 546-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Torres-Gallegos I, Zavala-Alonso V, Patiño-Marín N, Martinez-Castañon GA, Anusavice K, Loyola-Rodríguez JP. Enamel roughness and depth profile after phosphoric acid etching of healthy and fluorotic enamel. Aust Dent J 2012; 57: 151-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wiltshire WA, Gorbonos M, Botha SJ. An adhesion promoter for improved bonding to fluorosed teeth in orthodontics. J Dent Res 1996; 75: 1247
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982; 16: 265-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hotta K, Mogi M, Miura F, Nakabayashi N. Effect of 4-MET on bond strength and penetration of monomers into enamel. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 173-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortíz AJ, Canteras M. Bond strength of brackets bonded with an adhesion promoter. Br Dent J 2004; 196: 482-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortíz AJ, Canteras M. Effects of 3 adhesion promoters on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets: An in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 390-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bishara SE, Fehr DE, Jakobsen JR. A comparative study of the debonding strengths of different ceramic brackets, enamel conditioners, and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104: 170-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Salehi P, Pakshir H, Naseri N, Baherimoghaddam T. The effects of composite resin types and debonding pliers on the amount of adhesive remnants and enamel damages: A stereomicroscopic evaluation. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2013; 7: 199-205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bishara SE, Olsen ME, Von Wald L. Evaluation of debonding characteristics of a new collapsible ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 552-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984; 85: 333-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Reynolds JR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975; 2: 171-8
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O. Clinical appearance of dental fluorosis in permanent teeth in relation to histologic changes. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1978; 6: 315-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Weerasinghe DS, Nikaido T, Wettasinghe KA, Abayakoon JB, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength and morphological analysis of a self-etching primer adhesive system to fluorosed enamel. J Dent 2005; 33: 419-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Knoll M, Gwinnett AJ, Wolff MS. Shear strength of brackets bonded to anterior and posterior teeth. Am J Orthod 1986; 89: 476-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ateyah N, Akpata E. Factors affecting shear bond strength of composite resin to fluorosed human enamel. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 216-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vijayakumar A, Venkateswaran S, Krishnaswamy NR. Effects of three adhesion boosters on the shear bond strength of new and rebonded brackets – An in vitro study. World J Orthod 2010; 11: 123-8
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Chung CH, Fadem BW, Levitt HL, Mante FK. Effects of two adhesion boosters on the shear bond strength of new and rebonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 295-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schaneveldt S, Foley TF. Bond strength comparison of moisture-insensitive primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 267-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wenger NA, Deacon S, Harradine NW. A randomized control clinical trial investigating orthodontic bond failure rates when using Orthosolo universal bond enhancer compared to a conventional bonding primer. J Orthod 2008; 35: 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Olsen ME, Bishara SE, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of Scotchbond multipurpose and maleic acid as alternative methods of bonding orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 111: 498-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Knösel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Sadat-Khonsari R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O. et al. Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 1036-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Newman GV, Newman RA, Sun BI, Ha JL, Ozsoylu SA. Adhesion promoters, their effect on the bond strength of metal brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 108: 237-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar