Display options
Cite
Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Fraticelli D, et al. Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing. J Orthod Sci. 2015;4(4):123-7doi: 10.4103/2278-0203.173425.
Sfondrini, M. F., Scribante, A., Fraticelli, D., Roncallo, S., & Gandini, P. (2015). Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing. Journal of orthodontic science, 4(4), 123-7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.173425
Sfondrini, Maria Francesca, et al. "Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing." Journal of orthodontic science vol. 4,4 (2015): 123-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.173425
Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Fraticelli D, Roncallo S, Gandini P. Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing. J Orthod Sci. 2015 Oct-Dec;4(4):123-7. doi: 10.4103/2278-0203.173425. PMID: 26952141; PMCID: PMC4759976.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Orthod Sci. 2015 Oct-Dec;4(4):123-7. doi: 10.4103/2278-0203.173425.

Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing.

Journal of orthodontic science

Maria Francesca Sfondrini, Andrea Scribante, Danilo Fraticelli, Silvia Roncallo, Paola Gandini

Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, Unit of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

PMID: 26952141 PMCID: PMC4759976 DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.173425

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an epidemiological survey of the orthodontic debonding techniques in Italy, and describe the most commonly used methods to remove the brackets and adhesive from the tooth surfaces.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey consisting of 6 questions about bracket debonding methods and instruments used was emailed to 1000 orthodontists, who were members of the Italian Orthodontics Society (SIDO. Clinicians were characterized by different sex, age, origin, and professional experience.

RESULTS: Overall, 267 surveys were returned, representing a response rate of 26.7% of the participants interviewed. The 0.2% of the orthodontists responded, via email, confirming that they were not interested, while 3% of the questionnaires were sent back not completed. The 70.1% of the clinicians interviewed did not return any response. Overall, 64% of SIDO members (orthodontists) did not detect any enamel damage after debonding. The brackets used most frequently (89.14%) in clinical practice were the metal ones. The most commonly used pliers for bracket removal were cutters (37.08%) and bracket removal pliers (34.83%). For adhesive removal, low speed tungsten carbide burs under irrigation were the most widely utilized method for adhesive removal (40.08%), followed by high speed carbide burs (14.19%), and diamond burs (14.19%). The most frequently used instruments for polishing after debonding were rubber cups (36.70%) and abrasive discs (21.35%). The 31.21% of the orthodontists found esthetic enamel changes before bonding versus after debonding.

CONCLUSIONS: This survey showed the high variability of different methods for bracket debonding, adhesive removal, and tooth polishing. The collected answers indicate that most orthodontists have developed their own armamentarium of debonding and polishing, basing their method on trials and errors.

Keywords: Adhesive; bracket; enamel; orthodontic; polishing; survey

References

  1. Int J Dent Hyg. 2015 Feb;13(1):30-41 - PubMed
  2. Angle Orthod. 2009 Mar;79(2):361-7 - PubMed
  3. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Sep;108(3):284-93 - PubMed
  4. Med Sci Monit. 2014 Oct 20;20:1991-2001 - PubMed
  5. J Orthod Sci. 2014 Oct;3(4):118-24 - PubMed
  6. J Orofac Orthop. 2001 Jul;62(4):296-304 - PubMed
  7. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jun;137(6):809-15 - PubMed
  8. BMC Oral Health. 2014 Sep 19;14:117 - PubMed
  9. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2013 Fall;7(4):199-205 - PubMed
  10. J Dent Biomech. 2015 Feb 26;6:1758736015574401 - PubMed
  11. J Orthod Sci. 2015 Apr-Jun;4(2):37-41 - PubMed
  12. Angle Orthod. 2010 Nov;80(6):1036-44 - PubMed
  13. Angle Orthod. 2010 Nov;80(6):1081-8 - PubMed
  14. Am J Orthod. 1981 Mar;79(3):282-95 - PubMed
  15. Am J Orthod. 1982 Jan;81(1):43-8 - PubMed
  16. Eur J Orthod. 2012 Oct;34(5):610-7 - PubMed
  17. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2011 Summer;22(2):17-22 - PubMed
  18. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014 Nov-Dec;19(6):105-12 - PubMed
  19. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Jul;132(1):71-6 - PubMed
  20. Coll Antropol. 2003;27 Suppl 2:83-9 - PubMed
  21. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Oct;124(4):403-9 - PubMed
  22. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(2):103-10 - PubMed
  23. Angle Orthod. 2006 Mar;76(2):314-21 - PubMed
  24. Am J Orthod. 1981 May;79(5):500-22 - PubMed

Publication Types