Virtual bracket removal: a comparative assessment of different software packages.

BACKGROUND: High precision intra-oral scans, coupled with advanced software, enable virtual bracket removal (VBR) from digital models. VBR allows the delivery of retainers and clear aligners promptly following debonding, thus reducing the patients' appointments and minimizing the likelihood of tooth movement. The objective of this study was to compare the enamel surface before bonding and after VBR using three different Computer-aided design (CAD) software and to compare their accuracy. METHODS: Maxillary scans of 20 participants starting orthodontic treatment were selected for inclusion in the study, who exhibited mild to moderate crowding and required bonding of brackets on the labial surface of permanent maxillary teeth (from the maxillary left first molar to the maxillary right first molar). Two intra-oral scans were conducted on the same day, before bonding and immediately after bonding using CEREC Omnicam (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). The virtual removal of the brackets from the post-bonding models was performed using OrthoAnalyzer (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), Meshmixer (Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif, USA), and EasyRx (LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA) software. The models that underwent VBR were superimposed on the pre-bonding models by Medit Link App (Medit, Seoul, South Korea) using surface-based registration. The changes in the enamel surface following VBR using the three software packages were quantified using the Medit Link App. RESULTS: There was a significant difference among the 3Shape, Meshmixer, and EasyRx software in tooth surface change following VBR. Specifically, EasyRx exhibited lower levels of accuracy compared to the other two VBR software programs (p<.001, p<.001). A significant difference in enamel surface change was observed between tooth segments across all software groups, in both incisors and molars, with VBR of the molars exhibiting the lowest level of accuracy (3Shape p=.002, Meshmixer p<.001, EasyRx p<.001). Regarding the direction of tooth surface changes following VBR, it was observed that all three groups exhibited a significant increase in the percentage of inadequate bracket removal across all teeth segments. CONCLUSIONS: 3Shape and Meshmixer manual VBR software were found to be more accurate than EasyRx automated software, however, the differences were minimal and clinically insignificant.

Evaluation of orthodontists' attitudes and practices regarding residual resin removal methods.

INTRODUCTION: The removal of residual resins is a routine procedure in orthodontic clinics and of great importance to the final result of the treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the main methods of residual resin removal used by orthodontists, and the main reasons for choosing these methods. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 21 questions: 6 relating to demographic data and the other 15 relating to two methods used to remove residual resins (drills or pliers) was sent by e-mail to orthodontists registered with the Regional Councils of Dentistry of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) within April and June, 2023. Questionnaires were sent back by 153 professionals. RESULTS: Residual resin removal is always carried out with high speed drill for 44.7% of the sample, and with low speed drill for 28.7%; 61.3% use irrigation. The multi-laminate carbide bur is used by 82.5% of orthodontists. Pliers are always used by 12.4%. Resin-removing pliers with Widia are used in 39% of cases. The use of high speed was justified by the shorter working time, and the choice of pliers was justified by the smaller damage to the tooth enamel. CONCLUSION: The most used residual resin removal method was the multi-laminate carbide bur at high speed with irrigation, justified the by shorter working time.

Evaluation of the re-bond strength of debonded metal and ceramic brackets following Er: YAG laser treatment.

BACKGROUND: Failure of orthodontic bracket bonds is a common occurrence during orthodontic treatment. This study investigated the impact of Er: YAG laser-based removal of adhesive from the bases of metal and ceramic brackets for re-bonding. METHODS: A total of 168 extracted premolars were collected from patients. 84 metal brackets were used to be bonded on the buccal surface of the premolars in Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, while 84 ceramic brackets were applied in Groups I, II, III and IV. Group 1/I represented the initial bonding group, with Group 2/II being the re-bonding group with new brackets, while Groups 3/III and 4/ IV received recycled brackets treated by Er: YAG laser or flaming respectively. Both the first and second de-bonding were performed in all samples using a universal testing machine to determine the shear bond strength (SBS). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated using a stereo-microscope. The new and the treated bracket bases were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Differences in initial bonding and re-bonding ability were analyzed through one-way ANOVAs, and differences in ARI were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Greater amounts of adhesive residue were observed on ceramic brackets treated by laser. The SBS values for recycled metal brackets in Group 3 (26.13 MPa) were comparable to Group 1 (23.62 MPa) whereas they differed significantly from Group 4 (12.54 MPa). No significant differences in these values were observed when comparing the 4 groups with ceramic brackets. ARI score in Group 4 (2-3 points) differed significantly from the three other groups (P < 0.05). For Group I, II, III and IV, similar ARI scores were observed (P > 0.05). SEM analysis didn't show apparent damage of bracket bases consisting of either metal or ceramic material treated by Er: YAG laser. CONCLUSIONS: Er: YAG laser treatment was superior to flame treatment as a means of removing adhesive without damaging the brackets. SBS values and ARI scores following Er: YAG laser treatment were similar to those for new brackets, offering further support for Er: YAG laser treatment as a viable means of recycling debonded brackets.

Performance of two laser motion modes versus conventional orthodontic ceramic brackets debonding technique on enamel surface topography.

The risk of enamel deterioration that frequently coexists with debonding of orthodontic teeth brackets elevates the mandate for finding an optimum approach for debonding them without harmful effects. This in-vitro study is intended to compare the effects of two different laser modes (scanning and circular) and a conventional method on the enamel surface after debonding orthodontic brackets. 66 extracted premolars were assigned into 3 groups. After that, light-cure composite resin was used to attach the ceramic brackets to the teeth. Amongst the test groups, Group I: specimens that were debonded using conventional debonding using pliers; Group 2: specimens that were debonded using Er, Cr: YSGG laser applications using the circular motion method; and Group 3: specimens that were debonded using Er, Cr: YSGG laser applications using the scanning motion method. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) assessment, intra-pulpal temperature increase, enamel surface roughness after polishing, and assessment of the microstructure of enamel were carried out with scanning electron microscopy. The gathered information was examined statistically. The conventional debonding method had a significantly higher proportion of adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores of 2 and 3 in comparison to the circular (p < .004) and scanning laser groups (p < .001). There was no significant difference in ARI scores between the circular and scanning laser groups (p > .05). Moreover, the circular and scanning laser debonding methods resulted in a significantly higher proportion of Enamel Surface Roughness (ESR) scores of 0 and a lower proportion of ESR scores of 3 compared to the conventional technique group (p < .001). However, there was no significant difference in ESR scores between the circular and scanning laser methods (p = .945). Lastly, the average intra-pulpal temperature was significantly higher in the circular laser group (1.9 ± 0.5 ) compared to the scanning laser group (0.9 ± 0.2) with p < .001. Er, Cr: YSGG laser irradiation is a tool that shows promise for debonding ceramic brackets with minimal harm to the enamel surface. The scanning laser technique is more desirable due to the lower intra-pulpal temperature increase.

The effect of freezing on the fracture pattern of adhesive on debonding: an in-vitro study.

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate adhesive remnants on the enamel surface following bracket debonding using a freezing element. Thirty-six sound premolars were used in this study. In each case, a bracket was bonded onto each tooth with conventional light-cured composite resin and de-bonded after one week. Freezing of the underlying composite through the bracket was performed immediately before debonding with a portable cryosurgical system (-55 °C). Specimens were divided into three groups according to the duration of freezing: a control group without freezing was used as a reference and two interventional groups with different durations of freezing (15 or 40 s). Brackets were removed by using debonding pliers to squeeze the wings of the bracket in an occluso-gingival manner. Adhesive remnants on the tooth were then quantitatively evaluated by stereo-microscopy. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used to investigate the relationship between the proportion of remaining resin and the group of teeth. In the control group, 100% of the composite remained on the enamel surface of all specimens. Significantly less adhesive remnants were found in the intervention groups (p = 0.001 for the 15 s group and p = 0.043 for the 40 s group). There was no significant difference between the two interventions (p = 0.165) in terms of the proportion of remaining adhesive remnants. Freezing of the bracket and the underlying adhesive resin prior to bracket debonding may favorably alter the behavioral pattern of composite fracture, thus reducing the extent of adhesive remnants on the enamel. Increasing the freezing time from 15 to 40 s did not exert significant effects on adhesive remnants following debonding. Further research now needs to investigate the effect of freezing on the mechanical properties of the adhesive remnants and its in-vivo effect on pulp vitality over both short- and long-terms.

Laser debonding of ultrathin occlusal veneers fabricated from different CAD/CAM ceramic materials.

BACKGROUND: Erbium lasers safely offer the possibility of reuse for debonded restorations. Since these lasers have a high affinity for water molecules, they are absorbed by resin cement causing explosive ablation of the cement and thus, the restoration debonds. The efficiency of this process depends on many factors, including the ceramic type, its chemical composition and thickness. Therefore, this study was designed to test the time taken to debond ultrathin occlusal veneers made of three types of milled ceramic materials and evaluate the integrity of these restorations after debonding. METHODS: Three ceramic types were evaluated in this study: lithium disilicate (IPS Emax CAD), highly condensed lithium disilicate (GC initial®LiSi), and translucent zirconia (Katana zirconia STML). Each group consisted of 8 occlusal veneers of 0.5 mm thickness. The samples were cemented to the occlusal surfaces of the upper molar teeth. An Er; Cr: YSGG laser was applied to the occlusal veneers using the scanning method, and time until debonding was calculated. The debonded samples were then inspected under a stereomicroscope for possible damage. Numerical data are presented as the mean with 95% confidence interval (CI), standard deviation (SD), minimum (min.) and maximum (max.) values. Normality and variance homogeneity assumptions were confirmed using Shapiro-Wilk's and Levene's tests, respectively. Data were normally distributed and were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05 for all tests. Statistical analysis was performed with R statistical analysis software version 4.3.2 for Windows (R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in debonding time between the different materials (p = 0.995). The longest debonding time was found for Katana STML (87.52 ± 20.45) (seconds), followed by Emax (86.94 ± 20.63) (seconds), while the lowest value was found for LiSi initial (86.14 ± 25.16) (seconds). In terms of damage to the debonded veneers, The Emax and zirconia samples showed no damage. However, 40% of the LiSi samples fractured during debonding, and 20% exhibited cracks. Only 40% of the LiSi samples were sound after debonding. CONCLUSION: Er; Cr: YSGG laser can be used efficiently to remove ceramic occlusal veneers. However, its effect on LiSi restorations needs further research.

Enamel surface roughness following debonding resin clean up using high speed air-turbine and electric handpieces. In vitro study.

BACKGROUND: High speed electric handpieces have recently been growing in popularity among dental professionals. Advantages include smoother surface preparation and increased cutting efficiency. AIM: The primary objective was to compare enamel surface roughness following resin cleanup after bracket debonding using highspeed air turbine versus electric handpiece. The secondary objective was to record the time needed for resin-clean up. METHOD: Forty deidentified freshly extracted human premolars were cleaned and sectioned at the cement-enamel junction. The crowns were embedded in acrylic blocks. Enamel surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rz, Rp and Rv) were measured using a stylus profilometer. Brackets were bonded using a light-cure orthodontic adhesive and stored in distilled water for 24 h. Following bracket debonding, the specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups: First group: resin clean-up was carried out using a 12-fluted carbide bur mounted on a high-speed air turbine; and second group: where an electric handpiece was used. Surface roughness parameters were measured following resin clean up and after polishing using pumice and a rubber cup. Time needed for resin clean-up was recorded. Differences in enamel surface roughness and time between groups were compared using repeated measures ANOVA and independent samples t-test, respectively at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: The electric handpiece groups showed significantly higher values for Ra, Rz and Rp both following resin cleanup and polishing. Time taken for resin cleanup was significantly longer for the electric handpiece group. CONCLUSION: Considering both surface roughness and time, electric handpiece do not seem to add greater effectiveness or efficiency to resin cleanup following orthodontic bracket debonding.

Safety and Efficacy of the Erbium Laser in Debonding Dental Accessories: A Narrative Review.

Objective: This article aims to review the safety and efficacy of the Er:YAG laser in debonding dental accessories. Methods: This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Articles published between 2010 and 2022 on the removal of dental accessories using erbium laser were searched. The selected articles were then classified according to the accessories used: adhesives, brackets, restorations, or implant crowns. Enamel surface roughness, shear bond strength, adhesive remnant index, duration time (t), pulp chamber temperature (T), morphology (M), and other variables were then noted. Results: The dental accessories and adhesives used were described along with the laser parameters used, such as frequency, pulse width, irradiation time, scanning mode, water-air cooling, and other variables. Conclusions: Laser removal using Er:YAG laser of dental accessories such as brackets, crowns, and veneers is fundamentally safe, time-saving, and does not cause damage to the enamel nor the underlying dentin. However, there was no distinct advantage with laser removal seen, such as those residual adhesives of brackets on the tooth surface and temporary adhesives of restorations.

Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate enamel surface integrity and time consumed during residual cement removal after bracket debonding using different adhesive removal burs with and without a dental loupe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty human-extracted premolars were collected, cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Teeth were randomly divided into three main groups (n = 20) based on the adhesive removal method: tungsten carbide system (TC), sof-lex discs system (SD), and diamond system (DB) groups. Then, each group was subdivided into two subgroups (naked eye and magnifying loupe subgroups). The brackets were bonded and then debonded after 24 h, and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed by different systems, and the final polishing was performed by Silicone OneGloss. The enamel surface roughness was evaluated before bracketing (T0), after residual cement removal (T1), and finally after polishing (T2) using surface Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine the Enamel Damage Index (EDI) score. The time consumed for adhesive removal was recorded in seconds. RESULTS: The Kruskal Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in roughness values at T1 compared to T2 between subgroups (p < 0.001). When comparing EDI at T1 and T2, the Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed statistically significant differences in all subgroups. The pairwise comparisons revealed that EDI scores showed a statistically significant difference at T1 and T2 between DB vs. TC and SD (p = 0.015) but not between TC vs. SD (p = 1.000), indicating the highest roughness value observed in the DB group. The time for cement removal was significantly shorter in the magnifying loupe group than in the naked eye group and was shortest with the TC group, whereas the time was the longest with the DB group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: All three systems were clinically satisfactory for residual orthodontic adhesive removal. However, TC system produced the lowest enamel roughness, while the DB system created the greatest. The polishing step created smoother surfaces regardless of the systems used for resin removal.

Deep learning for virtual orthodontic bracket removal: tool establishment and application.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a tool for virtual orthodontic bracket removal based on deep learning algorithms for feature extraction from bonded teeth and to demonstrate its application in a bracket position assessment scenario. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our segmentation network for virtual bracket removal was trained using dataset A, containing 978 bonded teeth, 20 original teeth, and 20 brackets generated by scanners. The accuracy and segmentation time of the network were tested by dataset B, which included an additional 118 bonded teeth without knowing the original tooth morphology. This tool was then applied for bracket position assessment. The clinical crown center, bracket center, and orientations of separated teeth and brackets were extracted for analyzing the linear distribution and angular deviation of bonded brackets. RESULTS: This tool performed virtual bracket removal in 2.9 ms per tooth with accuracies of 98.93% and 97.42% (P < 0.01) in datasets A and B, respectively. The tooth surface and bracket characteristics were extracted and used to evaluate the results of manually bonded brackets by 49 orthodontists. Personal preferences for bracket angulation and bracket distribution were displayed graphically and tabularly. CONCLUSIONS: The tool's efficiency and precision are satisfactory, and it can be operated without original tooth data. It can be used to display the bonding deviation in the bracket position assessment scenario. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: With the aid of this tool, unnecessary bracket removal can be avoided when evaluating bracket positions and modifying treatment plans. It has the potential to produce retainers and orthodontic devices prior to tooth debonding.

Evaluation of enamel roughness after orthodontic debonding and clean-up procedures using zirconia, tungsten carbide, and white stone burs: an in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: The main goal of orthodontic debonding is to restore the enamel surface as closely as possible to its pretreatment condition without iatrogenic damage. This study aimed to compare the effects of different adhesive removal burs; zirconia burs, tungsten carbide burs, and white stone burs on enamel surface roughness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total sample of 72 extracted premolars was randomly divided into three equal groups (n = 24) depending on the method of adhesive removal: zirconia burs (ZB); tungsten carbide burs (TC); and white stones (WS). The metal brackets were bonded using Transbond XT orthodontic adhesive (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) and debonded after 24 h using a debonding plier, then the ARI was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed using the different burs and Final polishing was performed using Sof-lex discs and spirals. Thirteen samples from each group were evaluated using a Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometer to determine average surface roughness (Ra) and three samples from each group were examined under Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine EDI score. The evaluations were performed at three time points; before bonding (T0), after adhesive removal (T1) and after polishing (T2) and the time consumed for adhesive removal by burs was recorded in seconds. The data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA, Tukey's test and Kruskal-Wallis H-test. RESULTS: Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed no statistically significant difference of ARI in all studied groups (p = 0.845) and two-way mixed ANOVA revealed that all burs significantly increased surface roughness at T1 compared to T0 (p < 0.001) in all groups with the lowest Ra values were observed in the ZB group, followed by the TC group, and WS group. The fastest procedure was performed with WS, followed by ZB, then TC bur (p < 0.001). After polishing (T2), Ra values showed no significant difference in ZB group (P = 0.428) and TC group (P = 1.000) as compared to T0, while it was significant in WS group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: zirconia bur was comparable to tungsten carbide bur and can be considered as alternative to white stone which caused severe enamel damage. The polishing step created smoother surface regardless of the bur used for resin removal.

Effects of the conventional, soft start, and pulse delay modes produced by light-emitting diode device on metal brackets bond strength and enamel damage: An in vitro comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the bond strength and enamel damage following debonding of metal brackets cured by different light-curing modes: conventional, soft start, and pulse delay modes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty extracted upper premolars were randomly divided into three groups according to the used light-curing mode. Metal brackets were bonded with a light-emitting diode device employing different modes. Group 1: conventional mode (10s mesial+10 s distal); group 2: soft start mode (15s mesial+15s distal); group 3: pulse delay mode (3s mesial+3s distal, followed by 3min of no photoactivation, then 9s mesial+9s distal). Radiant exposure was the same in all study groups. Shear bond strengths of the brackets were tested with a universal testing machine. A stereomicroscope was used to determine the number and length of enamel microcracks. One-Way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to detect significant differences in shear bond strength and microcracks number and length among groups. RESULTS: The soft start and pulse delay modes produced significantly greater shear bond strength than the conventional mode (19.46±4.90MPa; 20.47±4.97MPa; 12.14±3.79MPa, respectively, P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the soft start and pulse delay groups (P=0.768). The number and length of microcracks increased significantly after debonding in all study groups. The change in microcracks length was not different among study groups. CONCLUSION: The soft start and pulse delay modes produced greater bond strength than the conventional mode without predisposing enamel to higher risk of damage. Conservative methods for debonding are still required.

Fluorescence-aided identification technique using a low-cost violet flashlight and rotatory instruments for dental trauma splint removal.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Removing resin composites used for bonding dental trauma splints may result in irreversible damage to the enamel. This in vitro study evaluated the influence of additional violet illumination and different bur types on damage caused to tooth enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen maxillary models with four bovine incisor teeth were prepared. All models were scanned using a laboratory scanning system (s600 ARTI; Zirkonzahn). Six experimental groups (n = 10) were generated by two study factors: lighting type (three levels), (1) low-cost (5-7 US$) violet LED flashlight (LUATEK, LT 408); (2) VALO Cordless light curing unit (Ultradent) with black lens; or (3) without additional illumination; and rotatory instrument (two levels), (1) diamond bur or (2) multifluted tungsten-carbide bur. New scanning was performed after splint removal, and the generated files were superimposed on the initial scans using Cumulus software. The light emitted by both violet light sources was characterized by using integrating sphere and beam profile. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of enamel damage and two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc was used at an α = 0.05. RESULTS: The use of low-cost violet flashlight that emitted the violet peak light at 385 nm and VALO Cordless with black lens at 396 nm resulted in significantly lower damage to the enamel surface than those in the groups without additional violet light (p < .001). An interaction between rotatory instruments and lighting was found. When no additional violet lighting was used, the diamond bur presented higher mean and maximum depth values. CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence lighting facilitated the removal of remnant resin composite dental trauma splints, leading to less invasive treatment. The diamond bur resulted in higher enamel damage than that affected by the multifluted bur when no violet lighting was used. A low-cost violet flashlight is a useful fluorescence-aided identification technique for removing resin composite dental trauma splints.

The influence of age and orthodontic debonding on the prevalence and severity of enamel craze lines.

BACKGROUND: Craze lines may cause esthetic concerns, especially when noted on the incisors. Various light sources with additional recording apparatus have been proposed to visualize craze lines, but a standardized clinical protocol is yet to be determined. This study aimed to validate the application of near-infrared imaging (NIRI) from intraoral scans to evaluate craze lines and to determine the influence of age and orthodontic debonding on their prevalence and severity. METHODS: The NIRI of maxillary central incisors from a full-mouth intraoral scan and photographs from an orthodontic clinic (N = 284) were collected. The prevalence of craze lines and influence of age and orthodontic debonding history on severity were evaluated. RESULTS: Craze lines were detected reliably as white lines distinguishable from dark enamel using the NIRI from intraoral scans. The craze line prevalence was 50.7%, which was significantly higher in patients 20 years or older than in patients younger than 20 years (P < .001), with more frequent severe craze lines for those 40 years or older than in patients younger than 30 years (P < .05). Prevalence or severity was similar between patients with and without an orthodontic debonding history regardless of the type of appliance. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of craze lines in the maxillary central incisor was 50.7%, with a higher prevalence in adults than in adolescents. Orthodontic debonding did not affect the severity of craze lines. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Craze lines were reliably detected and documented by means of applying NIRI from intraoral scans. Intraoral scanning can provide new clinical information on enamel surface characteristics.

Comparative evaluation of three methods of adhesive remnant removal after orthodontic bracket debonding.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effects of three methods of adhesive remnant removal (carbide bur and low speed handpiece, carbide bur and high speed handpiece, and zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite bur), after orthodontic bracket debonding, on tooth color and enamel surface roughness. METHODS: Ninety sound premolar teeth were selected. The baseline tooth color was assessed using Vita spectrophotometer. The teeth were subjected to bracket bonding processes and then randomly divided into three equal groups. In each group, composite remnant was removed by one of the three methods of adhesive removal, and the teeth were then subjected to color assessment again. To measure the surface roughness, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with x400 magnification was used. RESULTS: ANOVA showed that the effect of the three methods of adhesive remnant removal on ∆L, ∆b and ∆E was statistically significant (p=0.01), but without significant effect on ∆a. Comparison of the means showed that composite bur and high speed carbide bur yielded the highest ∆E (p=0.05), and had a significant difference when compared to carbide bur and low speed handpiece. The highest ∆L and ∆b values belonged to samples approached with composite bur and carbide bur with high speed handpiece, respectively. SEM analysis showed that the composite bur created a very smooth surface, compared to the other two methods. CONCLUSION: Zircon-rich glass fiber reinforced composite created the smoothest enamel surface and highest color change, when compared to the other two methods.

Flash-free and conventional adhesive ceramic brackets in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients undergoing multi-bracket orthodontic treatment. PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, CNKI and Grey-literature were searched without restrictions up to January 2022. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I cochrane risk of bias tools. Eight articles, for seven studies, were included in this systematic review, and four split-mouth trials (SMT) were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis found a statistically significant faster bonding time with FFA (mean difference [MD] = -93.85 seconds/quadrant, P = .002, 2 SMT), and no statistically significant difference regarding bracket failure rate at 6 months (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; P = .93, 3 SMT), adhesive removal time (MD = -18.26 seconds/quadrant, P = .50, 2 SMT), and amount of remnant adhesive (MD = -0.13/bracket, P = .72, 2 SMT) between FFA and CVA. No difference (P > .05, 3 SMT) was found in enamel demineralization and periodontal measurements. CVA showed a statistically significant higher debonding pain score (P = .004, 1 SMT). Both flash-free and conventional adhesive ceramic brackets had a similar clinical performance, except for the faster bonding with FFA. Further, well-designed clinical trials are still required.

Effects of a flash-free system on dental plaque accumulation and bonding-debonding process: A clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of a flash-free (FF) System on (1) the amount of plaque accumulation around the braces on buccal surfaces of the teeth, (2) the time required for the placement of brackets, including the clean-up of the flash, (3) the amount of adhesive left on the tooth after debonding, and (4) time required for adhesive remnant clean-up. METHODS: Thirty-six patients (aged 19.96 ± 5.74 years) were randomly distributed to receive adhesive precoat (APC)-FF and APC-Plus ceramic brackets on the maxillary right or left anterior 6 teeth. Bonding and debonding time were measured per segment in milliseconds. A plaque revealer agent was applied to discolor the dental plaque, and a modified plaque accumulation index was used to evaluate the amount of plaque at 2 different time points. An adhesive residue index was used after the debonding. RESULTS: The mean bonding times were 138.87 seconds (8332.47 milliseconds) and 77.82 seconds (4669.31 milliseconds) for APC-Plus and APC-FF, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P ≤0.001). The difference between the mean debonding times was not statistically significant. A significant difference was found between the adhesive residue index scores of the 2 systems (P ≤0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between plaque accumulation scores at first- and second-time points for both adhesive systems. APC-Plus score (0.94 ± 0.98) was higher than the APC-FF score (0.50 ± 0.91) on the incisal side at the second time point (P ≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FF adhesives can be a good alternative to reduce chair time in bonding appointments.

[Clinical comparative study of efficacy of Er:YAG laser for debonding different veneers].

PURPOSE: To compare the debonding time of IPS e.max CAD lithium disilicate glass-ceramic veneers in different thickness and transparency using Er:YAG laser, and evaluate the effect of Er:YAG laser on the surface topography of the veneers and the underlying tooth. METHODS: A total of twelve maxillary first premolar teeth were collected and prepared, then veneers were made by computer aided design and computer aided manufacture(CAD/CAM) system. The veneers were divided into four groups according to different thicknesses and transparency: e.max HT with 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm thickness, e.max LT with 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm thickness. Three veneers of each group were cemented to prepared premolar with resin cement and then stored in normal saline solution at room temperature for 7 days. All veneers were debonded with Er:YAG laser and the debonding time of all-ceramic veneers of all groups was recorded. Scanning electron microscopy(SEM) observation was performed to detect the surface topography of the veneers and the underlying tooth. SPSS 19.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The debonding time of 1.0 mm-thick groups were longer than 0.5 mm-thick groups. When the veneer thickness was 0.5 mm, the average debonding time of e.max LT group was longer than e.max HT. Consistent with the finding of 0.5 mm, the longer debonding time was found in the e.max LT group of 1.0mm. No cracks and crater structure were found in SEM observation of veneers after Er:YAG laser irradiation. Teeth surface was covered with bonding cement with no signs of ablation or damage of the enamel. CONCLUSIONS: Er:YAG laser can completely debond lithium disilicate glass-ceramic veneers, and the debonding time depends on the transparency and thickness of the veneers. The lower translucent porcelain veneers (e.max LT) and thicker ones (1.0 mm-thick) had a longer debonding time. Moreover, Er:YAG laser does not damage the morphology and topography of the veneer and the teeth surface.

Erbium laser-assisted ceramic debonding: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Removal of ceramic restorations and appliances can be time consuming, invasive, and inconvenient. Erbium lasers offer an alternative noninvasive method for debonding of ceramic appliances. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of current literature on the effectiveness of erbium lasers for removal of ceramic restorations and appliances from natural teeth and dental implants. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 7 databases, including Medline (Ovid), Embase, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (DOSS), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses was performed. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were agreed prior to the literature search. Two reviewers independently screened the title and abstract. A third reviewer then broke the tie, if any. The selected articles then underwent full text review and the data was extracted. RESULTS: The search identified 4117 unique articles published through June 10, 2021. Studies were assessed and categorized based on the type of restoration/appliance, type of abutment, type of laser, laser settings, efficacy of debonding, and pulpal temperature rise. Thirty-eight full-text articles were reviewed for inclusion. Time for ceramic debonding varies depending on the type of restorations and materials. Removal of zirconia crowns from teeth and implant abutments requires a longer period of time compared to lithium disilicate crowns. Temperature increases were reported as 5.5 degrees or less. Laser setting and laser type affect the debonding time and the increase in temperature. Examinations of debonded ceramics demonstrated no known structural damages resulting from laser applications. CONCLUSIONS: Erbium lasers are effective noninvasive tools to remove all ceramic restorations/appliances from natural teeth and implant abutments without causing harm to abutments. Laser-assisted debonding should be considered as a viable alternative to rotary instrumentation for ceramic crowns; however, clinical studies of erbium-assisted ceramic retrieval are needed.