Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:59:47.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Novel Method Using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy for Three-Dimensional Analysis of Human Dental Enamel Subjected to Ceramic Bracket Debonding

Part of: Micrographia Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2020

Fabiano G. Ferreira Open the ORCID record for Fabiano G. Ferreira [Opens in a new window] ,
Eduardo M. da Silva  and
Oswaldo de V. Vilella
Fabiano G. Ferreira*
Affiliation:
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro24020-140, Brazil
Eduardo M. da Silva
Affiliation:
Analitical Laboratory of Restorative Biomaterials – LABiom-R, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro24020-140, Brazil
Oswaldo de V. Vilella
Affiliation:
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro24020-140, Brazil
*
*Author for correspondence: Fabiano Guerra Ferreira, E-mail: drfabianoguerra@ig.com.br
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to present a method using confocal laser scanning microscopy for three-dimensional analysis of human dental enamel subjected to ceramic bracket debonding. The labial enamel surfaces of three upper central incisors were prepared and mounted in the form of standardized specimens. A sample repositioning protocol was established to enable surface measurement and analysis before and after bracket debonding. Observations were made of representative areas measuring 1,280 × 1,280 μm2, in the center of the enamel samples, as well as of the total topography (2,500 × 3,500 μm) of the bonding areas provided by the equipment software. Noncontact three-dimensional high-resolution image analyses revealed the capabilities of the employed technique and methodology to permit the examination of specific characteristics and alterations on the surfaces, before and after the debonding and finishing procedures. The new protocol was effective to provide qualitative and quantitative assessments of changes on the same dental surfaces at different trial times. The methodology constitutes a feasible tool for revealing the effects of debonding of ceramic brackets on sound and previously injured dental enamel surfaces.

Keywords

bracket debondingconfocal laser scanning microscopydental enamelmicroscopysurface analysis
Type
Micrographia
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 1053 - 1060
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahrari, F, Heravi, F, Fekrazad, R, Farzanegan, F & Nakhaei, S (2012). Does ultra-pulse CO2 laser reduce the risk of enamel damage during debonding of ceramic brackets? Lasers Med Sci 27, 567–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al Shamsi, AH, Cunningham, JL, Lamey, PJ & Lynch, E (2007). Three-dimensional measurement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: An in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131(301), e9–e15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishara, SE, Laffoon, JF, VonWald, L & Warren, JJ (2002). The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121, 521–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishara, SE, Ostby, AW, Laffoon, J & Warren, JJ (2008). Enamel cracks and ceramic bracket failure during debonding in vitro. Angle Orthod 78, 1078–1083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, CRL & Way, DC (1978). Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Orthod 74, 663–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, PM (1995). Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 65, 103–110.Google ScholarPubMed
Cochrane, NJ, Lo, TWG, Adams, GG & Schneider, PM (2017). Quantitative analysis of enamel on debonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 152, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumbryte, I, Jonavicius, T, Linkeviciene, L, Linkevicius, T, Peciuliene, V & Malinauskas, M (2015). Enamel cracks evaluation – A method to predict tooth surface damage during the debonding. Dent Mater J 34, 828–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumbryte, I, Jonavicius, T, Linkeviciene, L, Linkevicius, T, Peciuliene, V & Malinauskas, M (2016). The prognostic value of visually assessing enamel microcracks: Do debonding and adhesive removal contribute to their increase? Angle Orthod 86, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumbryte, I, Linkeviciene, L, Linkevicius, T & Malinauskas, M (2017). Enamel microcracks in terms of orthodontic treatment: A novel method for their detection and evaluation. Dent Mater J 36, 438–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumbryte, I, Vebriene, J, Linkeviciene, L & Malinauskas, M (2018). Enamel microcracks in the form of tooth damage during orthodontic debonding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Eur J Orthod 30, 636–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eminkahyagil, N, Arman, A, Çetinşahin, A & Karabulut, E (2006). Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod 76, 314–321.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, FG, Nouer, DF, Silva, NP, Garbui, IU, Correr-Sobrinho, L & Nouer, PRA (2014). Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: A noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis. Clin Oral Investig 18, 1853–1864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, J, Waterhouse, P & German, M (2010). Quantifying and qualifying surface changes on dental hard tissues in vitro. J Dent 38, 182–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fjeld, M & Øgaard, B (2006). Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel surfaces exposed to 3 orthodontic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130, 575–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutiérrez-Salazar, MdP & Reyes-Gasga, J (2003). Microhardness and chemical composition of human tooth. Mater Res 6, 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwinnett, AJ & Ceen, RF (1979). Plaque distribution on bonded brackets: A scanning microscope study. Am J Orthod 75, 667–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gwinnett, JA (1988). A comparison of shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 93, 346–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Habibi, M, Nik, TH & Hooshmand, T (2007). Comparison of debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel: An in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132, 675–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heravi, F, Rashed, R & Leila Raziee, L (2008). The effects of bracket removal on enamel. Aust Orthod J 24, 110–115.Google ScholarPubMed
Janiszewska-Olszowska, J, Tandecka, K, Szatkiewicz, T, Stȩpień, P, Sporniak-Tutak, K & Grocholewicz, K (2015). Three-dimensional analysis of enamel surfacealteration resulting from orthodontic clean-up – Comparison of three different tools. BMC Oral Health 15(1), 146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karan, S, Kircelli, BH & Tasdelen, B (2010). Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod 80, 1081–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitahara-Céia, FMF, Mucha, JN & dos Santos, PAM (2008). Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134, 548–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leão Filho, JCB, Braz, AKS, de Araujo, RE, Tanaka, OM & Pithon, MM (2015). Enamel quality after debonding: Evaluation by optical coherence tomography. Braz Dent J 26, 384–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machoy, ME, Koprowski, R, Szyszka-Sommerfeld, L, Safranow, K, Gedrange, T & Woźniak, K (2019). Optical coherence tomography as a non-invasive method of enamel thickness diagnosis after orthodontic treatment by 3 different types of brackets. Adv Clin Exp Med 28, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Øgaard, B, Larsson, E, Henriksson, T, Birkhed, D & Bishara, SE (2001). Effects of combined application of antimicrobial and fluoride varnishes in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 120, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pignatta, LMB, Duarte Júnior, S & Santos, ECA (2012). Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and polishing. Dental Press J Orthod 17, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, JM, Kim, HB & Turner, DS (1997). Orthodontic adhesives and bond strength testing. Semin Orthod 3, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, IR (1975). A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 2, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rix, D, Foley, TF & Mamandras, A (2001). Comparison of bond strength of three adhesives: Composite resin, hybrid GIC, and glass-filled GIC. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 119, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suliman, SN, Trojan, TM, Tantbirojn, D & Versluis, A (2015). Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro. Angle Orthod 85, 651–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed