What is the best method for debonding metallic brackets from the patient's perspective?

Matheus Melo Pithon, Daniel Santos Fonseca Figueiredo, Dauro Douglas Oliveira, Raildo da Silva Coqueiro, Matheus Melo Pithon, Daniel Santos Fonseca Figueiredo, Dauro Douglas Oliveira, Raildo da Silva Coqueiro

Abstract

Background: The aim of this clinical investigation was to compare the level of discomfort reported by patients during the removal of orthodontic metallic brackets performed with four different debonding instruments.

Methods: The sample examined in this split-mouth study comprised a total of 70 patients (840 teeth). Four different methods of bracket removal were used: lift-off debonding instrument (LODI), straight cutter plier (SC), how plier (HP), and bracket removal plier (BRP). Prior to debonding with all experimental methods, the archwire was removed. Before appliance removal, each patient was instructed about the study objectives. It was explained that at the end of debonding in each quadrant, it would be necessary to assess the discomfort of the procedure using a visual analog scale (VAS). This scale was composed of a millimeter ruler scoring from 0 to 10, in which 0 = a lot of pain, 5 = moderate pain, and 10 = painless. The level of significance was predetermined at 5 % (p = 0.05), and the data were analyzed using the BioEstat 5.0 software (BioEstat, Belém, Brazil).

Results: The pain scores with SC were significantly higher than in all other methods. There were no significant differences between HP and BRP pain scores, and the LODI group showed the lowest pain scores. Statistically, significant differences were observed in the ARI between the four debonding methods.

Limitations: The biggest limitation of this study is that each tooth was not assessed individually.

Conclusions: Patients reported lower levels of pain and discomfort when metallic brackets were removed with the LODI. The use of a straight cutter plier caused the highest pain and discomfort scores during debonding.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Debonding methods used. a Lift-off debonding instrument (LODI). b Straight cutter (SC). c How plier (HP). d Bracket removal plier (BRP)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Portable digital microscope used to determine the ARI. b Microscope being used
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Images obtained with the patient directly into portable microscope. a IRA = 0. b IRA = 1. c IRA = 2. d IRA = 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Mean ± standard deviation perception of discomfort scores during bracket debonding, according to the different methods used. *Statistical difference between the methods (Friedman test). Different letters (superscript a, b, c) represent statistical difference (Wilcoxon test)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Mean ± standard deviation ARI scores registered with the four debonding methods tested. *Statistical difference between the methods (Friedman test). Different letters (superscript a, b, c) represent statistical difference (Wilcoxon test)

References

    1. d’Ornellas Pereira JC, Jr, Weissheimer A, de Menezes LM, de Lima EM, Mezomo M. Change in the pulp chamber temperature with different stripping techniques. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:55. doi: 10.1186/s40510-014-0055-8.
    1. Sobouti F, Rakhshan V, Chiniforush N, Khatami M. Effects of laser-assisted cosmetic smile lift gingivectomy on postoperative bleeding and pain in fixed orthodontic patients: a controlled clinical trial. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:66. doi: 10.1186/s40510-014-0066-5.
    1. Loewenstein WR, Rathkamp R. A study on the pressoreceptive sensibility of the tooth. J Dent Res. 1955;34:287–94. doi: 10.1177/00220345550340021701.
    1. Krishnan V. Orthodontic pain: from causes to management–a review. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:170–9. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl081.
    1. Takla PM, Shivapuja PK. Pulpal response in electrothermal debonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108:623–9. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70008-0.
    1. Haynes S. Discontinuation of orthodontic treatment relative to patient age. J Dent. 1974;2:138–42. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(74)90041-4.
    1. Oliver RG, Knapman YM. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1985;12:179–88. doi: 10.1179/bjo.12.4.179.
    1. Brown DF, Moerenhout RG. The pain experience and psychological adjustment to orthodontic treatment of preadolescents, adolescents, and adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;100:349–56. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70073-6.
    1. Kluemper GT, Hiser DG, Rayens MK, Jay MJ. Efficacy of a wax containing benzocaine in the relief of oral mucosal pain caused by orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122:359–65. doi: 10.1067/mod.2002.126405.
    1. Williams OL, Bishara SE. Patient discomfort levels at the time of debonding: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;101:313–7. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)80324-5.
    1. Lee-Knight CT, Wylie SG, Major PW, Glover KE, Grace M. Mechanical and electrothermal debonding: effect on ceramic veneers and dental pulp. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112:263–70. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70254-3.
    1. Normando TS, Calcada FS, Ursi WJ, Normando D. Patients’ report of discomfort and pain during debonding of orthodontic brackets: a comparative study of two methods. World J Orthod. 2010;11:e29–34.
    1. Boyer DB, Engelhardt G, Bishara SE. Debonding orthodontic ceramic brackets by ultrasonic instrumentation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108:262–6. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70019-6.
    1. Knosel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Sadat-Khonsari R, Ziebolz D. Suitability of orthodontic brackets for rebonding and reworking following removal by air pressure pulses and conventional debracketing techniques. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:461–7.
    1. Knosel 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. doi: 10.2319/033110-48.1.
    1. Azzeh E, Feldon PJ. Laser debonding of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123:79–83. doi: 10.1067/mod.2003.2.
    1. Sheridan JJ, Brawley G, Hastings J. Electrothermal debracketing. Part I. An in vitro study. Am J Orthod. 1986;89:21–7. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(86)90109-0.
    1. Santos BM, Pithon MM, Ruellas AC, Sant’Anna EF. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded with hydrophilic and hydrophobic bond systems under contamination. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:963–7. doi: 10.2319/022310-113.1.
    1. Pithon MM, de Oliveira Ruellas AC, Sant’Anna EF, de Oliveira MV, Alves Bernardes LA. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to enamel with a self-etching primer. Effects of increasing storage time after activation. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:133–7. doi: 10.2319/100207-472.1.
    1. Pithon MM, Oliveira MV, Ruellas AC, Bolognese AM, Romano FL. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel under different surface treatment conditions. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15:127–30. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572007000200010.
    1. Farzanegan F, Zebarjad SM, Alizadeh S, Ahrari F. Pain reduction after initial archwire placement in orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141:169–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.042.
    1. Kokich VG. Do you have an evidence-based practice? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143:1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.11.001.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8.
    1. Parrish BC, Katona TR, Isikbay SC, Stewart KT, Kula KS. The effects of application time of a self-etching primer and debonding methods on bracket bond strength. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:131–6. doi: 10.2319/020411-82.1.
    1. Cehreli SB, Polat-Ozsoy O, Sar C, Cubukcu HE, Cehreli ZC. A comparative study of qualitative and quantitative methods for the assessment of adhesive remnant after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:188–92. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq191.
    1. Elekdag-Turk S, Isci D, Ozkalayci N, Turk T. Debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different conditioning methods. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:84–9. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn067.
    1. Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:333–8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.3.333.
    1. Bennett CG, Shen C, Waldron JM. The effects of debonding on the enamel surface. J Clin Orthod. 1984;18:330–4.
    1. Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R, Oliver RG, Newcombe RG. A clinical study of amount of adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding, comparing etch times of 15 and 60 s. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:415–21. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90303-X.
    1. Manly RS, Pfaffman C, Lathrop DD, Keyser J. Oral sensory thresholds of persons with natural and artificial dentitions. J Dent Res. 1952;31:305–12. doi: 10.1177/00220345520310030201.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner