Bracket bonding has been a major advance in orthodontic treatment. However, the method of debonding can lead to different problems such as enamel fractures, enamel loss and enamel scratching. This clinical investigation aims to investigate the influence of the use of different magnifying systems on enamel damage and the presence of composite residues during the debonding procedure, analyzing the dental surface with the intraoral scanner. To achieve the aforementioned purpose the authors used the ARI index, which allowed us a first post removal bracket evaluation, evaluating both composite remnants after debonding and enamel damage coming from an unfavorable breakouts. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-seven human teeth were used in this study to evaluate ad hesive removal with and without the use of magnifying systems. Each tooth has been photo graphed and scanned with the intraoral scanner CS3600-Carestream at the baseline (T0), after bracket positioning (T1), after debonding (T2) and after clean up (T3). All tooth scans were saved in STL format (Standard Tessellation Language) and exported to MeshLab software to determine the changes on the enamel surface where the brackets were positioned. RESULTS The evaluation of differential images, obtained by digital sub traction computed by the Mesh Lab software, showed statistical ly significant difference (p = 0.0022) between the proce dures performed with the naked eye and those performed with magnification systems, while there does not seem to be significant difference between the two different magnifying systems (p = 0.8745). CONCLUSIONS Careful adhesive removal and efficient methods of restoring the enamel surface as much as possible to its pre-treatment state is essential. From the results obtained it is possible to demonstrate that working with magnification and better illumination results in fewer composite remnants on the enamel sur faces. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The use of magnification sys tems is not an absolute guaran tee to perform a dental therapy correctly. A deep knowledge of the technique and materials al lows to reach high quality standards. The use of magnification systems with coaxial lighting can provide the clinician a tool that can improve visibility, as well as the ability to discriminate between different structures, thanks to a better visual, reducing the risk of damage to anatomical structures.
The influence of magnification on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding
Marcon M.;
2019-01-01
Abstract
Bracket bonding has been a major advance in orthodontic treatment. However, the method of debonding can lead to different problems such as enamel fractures, enamel loss and enamel scratching. This clinical investigation aims to investigate the influence of the use of different magnifying systems on enamel damage and the presence of composite residues during the debonding procedure, analyzing the dental surface with the intraoral scanner. To achieve the aforementioned purpose the authors used the ARI index, which allowed us a first post removal bracket evaluation, evaluating both composite remnants after debonding and enamel damage coming from an unfavorable breakouts. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-seven human teeth were used in this study to evaluate ad hesive removal with and without the use of magnifying systems. Each tooth has been photo graphed and scanned with the intraoral scanner CS3600-Carestream at the baseline (T0), after bracket positioning (T1), after debonding (T2) and after clean up (T3). All tooth scans were saved in STL format (Standard Tessellation Language) and exported to MeshLab software to determine the changes on the enamel surface where the brackets were positioned. RESULTS The evaluation of differential images, obtained by digital sub traction computed by the Mesh Lab software, showed statistical ly significant difference (p = 0.0022) between the proce dures performed with the naked eye and those performed with magnification systems, while there does not seem to be significant difference between the two different magnifying systems (p = 0.8745). CONCLUSIONS Careful adhesive removal and efficient methods of restoring the enamel surface as much as possible to its pre-treatment state is essential. From the results obtained it is possible to demonstrate that working with magnification and better illumination results in fewer composite remnants on the enamel sur faces. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The use of magnification sys tems is not an absolute guaran tee to perform a dental therapy correctly. A deep knowledge of the technique and materials al lows to reach high quality standards. The use of magnification systems with coaxial lighting can provide the clinician a tool that can improve visibility, as well as the ability to discriminate between different structures, thanks to a better visual, reducing the risk of damage to anatomical structures.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
