Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975; 2:171-178
Whitlock BO, Eick DJ Shear strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994; 106:358-364
Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part I. Backgrounds and methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98:145-153
Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study: Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98:263-273
Scott GE. Fracture toughness and surface cracks – the key to understanding ceramic brackets. The Angle Orthod. 1988; 1:5-8
Swartz M. Ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1988; 22:82-88
Karamouzos A, Athanasiou A, Moschos A Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 112:34-40
Hertzberg RW., 2nd edn. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons; 2004
Elekdag-Turk S, Isci D, Ozkalayci N Debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different conditioning methods. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31:84-89
Ghosh J, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG Ceramic bracket design: an analysis using the finite element method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108:575-582
Nishio C, Mendes AdM, Almeida MAO Evaluation of esthetic bracket resistance to torsional forces from the archwire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:42-48
Johnston NJ, Price R, Day C Quantitative and qualitative analysis of particulate production during simulated clinical orthodontic debonds. Dent Mater. 2009; 25:1155-1162
Zarrinia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108:284-293
Retief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehab. 1974; 1:(3)265-284
Ozcan M, Finnema K, Ybema A. Evaluation of failure characteristics and bond strength after ceramic and polycarbonate bracket debonding: effect of bracket base silanization. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30:176-182
Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984; 85:333-340
Oliver RG. The effect of different methods of bracket removal on the amount of residual adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 93:196-200
Bennett CG, Shen C, Waldron JM. The effects of debonding on the enamel surface. J Clin Orthod. 1984; 18:330-334
Russell JS. Current products and practice: aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod. 2005; 32:146-163
Jena AK, Duggal R, Mehrota AK. Physical properties and clinical characteristics of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2007; 20:101-115
Bishara SE, Olsen ME, VonWald L Comparison of the debonding characteristics of two innovative ceramic bracket designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116:86-92
Segner Odegaard J Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94:201-206
Joseph VP, Rossouw PE. The shear bond strengths of stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded to teeth with orthodontic composite resin and various fissure sealants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98:66-71
Viazis A, Cavanaugh G, Bevis R. Bond strength of ceramic brackets under shear stress: an in vitro report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98:214-221
Forsberg C, Hagberg C. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with chemical or mechanical retention. Br J Orthod. 1992; 19:183-189
Franklin S, Garcia-Godoy F. Shear bond strengths and effects on enamel of two ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1993; 27:83-88
Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. Stress analysis of adhesive-bonded lap joints. J Strain Analysis. 1974; 9:185-196
Arici S, Minors C. The force levels required to mechanically debond ceramic brackets: an in vitro comparative study. Eur J Orthod. 2000; 22:327-334
Sheridan JJ, Brawley G, Hastings J. Electrothermal debracketing: Part I. An in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986; 89:21-27
Sheridan JJ, Brawley G, Hastings J. Electrothermal debracketing: Part II. An in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986; 89:141-145
Dovgan JS, Walton RE, Bishara SE. Electrothermal debracketing: patient acceptance and effects on the dental pulp. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108:249-255
Strobol K, Bahns TL, Wiliham L Laser-aided debonding of orthodontic ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 101:152-158
Tocchio RM, Williams PT, Mayer FJ Laser debonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103:155-162
Lobene RR, Bhussry BR, Fine S. Interaction of carbon dioxide laser radiation with enamel and dentin. J Dent Res. 1968; 47:311-317
Adrian J, Bernier J, Spraque W. Laser and the dental pulp. J Am Dent Assoc. 1971; 83:113-117
Keller U, Hibst R. Experimental studies of the application of the Er.YAG laser on dental hard substances: II. Light microscopic and SEM investigations. Lasers Surg Med. 1989; 9:345-351
Larmour CJ, McCabe JF, Gordon PH. An ex vivo investigation into the effects of chemical solvents on the debond behavior of ceramic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod. 1998; 25:35-39
Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26:333-338
Siegel S, Fraunhofer JA. Dental cutting with diamond burs: heavy-handed or light touch?. J Prosthod. 1999; 8:3-9
Zachrisson B, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1979; 75:(2)121-137
Hong YH, Lew KKK. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of enamel surface following five composite removal methods after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod. 1995; 17:121-128
Gwinnettt AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding. Am J Orthod. 1977; 71:651-665
Rouleau BD, Marshall GW, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82:423-426
Oliver RG, Griffiths J. Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding – time taken and surface enamel appearance. Br J Orthod. 1992; 19:131-137
Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and clean-up with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126:717-772
Krell KV, Courey JM, Bishara SE. Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103:258-266
Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34:25-32
Ogaard B. Oral microbiological changes, long-term enamel alterations due to decalcification and caries prophylactic aspects. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T (eds). Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001
Bollen CML, Lambrechts Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997; 13:258-269
Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. J Clin Periodontol. 1990; 17:138-144
Quirynen M. The clinical meaning of the surface roughness and the surface free energy of intra-oral hard substrata on the microbiology of the supra- and subgingival plaque: results of in vitro and in vivo experiments. J Dent. 1994; 22:s13-s16
Day CJ, Price R, Sandy JR Inhalation of aerosols produced during the removal of fixed orthodontic appliances: a comparison of 4 enamel clean-up methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:11-17
Ireland AJ, Moreno T, Price R. Airbourne particles produced during enamel clean-up after removal of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:683-686
Fratzl P, Weinkamer R. Nature's hierarchical materials. Prog Mater Sci. 2007; 52:1263-1334
Deville S. Freeze-casting of porous ceramics: a review of current achievements and issues. Adv Eng Mat. 2008; 10:155-169
Deville S. Freeze-casting of porous biomaterials: structure, properties and opportunities. Materials. 2010; 3:1913-1927
Donchev D, Koch D, Andresen L Freeze-casting-controlled ice crystallisation for pore design in green ceramic bodies. Proc BIWIC. 237-244
Donchev D, Andresen L, Koch D Setting of a desired porosity in ceramic green bodies via controlled crystallization of the aqueous phase. Chemie Ingenieur Technik. 2004; 76:1688-1690
Szepes A, Ulrich J, Farkas Z Freeze casting technique in the development of solid drug delivery systems. Chem Eng Process. 2007; 46:230-238
Fox N, McCabe J. An easily removable ceramic bracket?. Br J Orthod. 1992; 19:305-309
Olsen ME, Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of different ceramic base designs. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67:179-182
Bordeaux JM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Comparative evaluation of ceramic bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994; 105:552-560
Orthodontic debonding: methods, risks and future developments Samantha Brooke Stewart Colin P Chambers Jonathon R Sandy Bo Su Anthony Ireland Dental Update 2024 7:1, 707-709.
Authors
Samantha BrookeStewart
BDS, MJDF
Orthodontic STR, Orthodontic Department, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
The ultimate aims for any clinician at orthodontic debond, following the attainment of a good occlusal result, are to remove all of the attachments, along with the bonding/banding material, as atraumatically as possible whilst minimizing the risks to the operator, assistant and patient during the whole process. This paper reviews the process of debonding following a course of orthodontic fixed appliance therapy, from bracket/band removal through to enamel clean-up. In particular, the risks to both the patient and operator are described at all stages. Future developments are discussed that might help reduce such risks.
Clinical Relevance: Returning the tooth, following orthodontic treatment, to its pretreatment condition is as important as the orthodontic treatment itself. The process of debonding is not without risk and it is vital that all clinicians are aware of these risks, but also what they can do to minimize them as much as possible.
Article
The ultimate aims for any clinician at orthodontic debond, following the attainment of a good occlusal result, are to remove all of the attachments, along with the bonding/banding material, as atraumatically as possible to minimize damage to the enamel surface, returning it to its pretreatment condition and, finally, to minimize the risks to the operator, assistant and patient during the whole process. Each of these aims will be discussed in turn, with an emphasis on the removal of ceramic brackets, where the risks are perhaps greatest and where future developments might help reduce such risks.
Unlike many other aspects of dentistry, where appliances are placed in the expectation that they will remain in place for perhaps 20 years or more, in orthodontics appliances need to remain in place for approximately two years, following which they should be easy to remove and the enamel should be returned to its pretreatment condition. This requires knowledge of the maximum force(s) the appliance is likely to be subjected to during treatment, from the patient, the operator and the appliance itself and, in addition, the minimum force necessary for its atraumatic removal at completion.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
