No abstract

Although SBS and ARI scores were not significantly different for the two adhesives, clinicians need to take into consideration the other properties of the adhesives before using them.

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that no difference in bracket failure characteristics is noted when use of a new ceramic bracket debonding instrument is compared with the use of conventional pliers. Materials and Methods: Thirty maxillary premolars were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In group 1, Clarity collapsible ceramic brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were debonded with the use of conventional Utility/Weingart (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) pliers. In group 2, Clarity brackets were debonded with a new Debonding Instrument (3M Unitek). For all teeth, the same bracket bonding system was used. Following debonding, teeth and brackets were examined under 10ϫ magnification for assessment of bracket failure (fracture) and of residual adhesive on the enamel surface. Enamel surfaces were visualized with transillumination prior to bonding and after removal of the residual adhesive, so the effect of the debonding forces could be determined. Results:The results of Adhesive Remnant Index comparisons indicated that a statistically significant difference ( 2 ϭ 8.73; P ϭ .013) in bond failure patterns was apparent when the two groups were compared. Brackets debonded with the new instrument showed a greater tendency for the adhesive to be removed from the tooth during debonding. Conclusions:The hypothesis is rejected. Although the incidence of enamel damage following debonding was similar in the two groups, the use of the new Debonding Instrument decreased the incidence of bracket fracture.

Only one light curing application is needed to successfully bond brackets when using SEPs and adhesives. This approach can potentially reduce technique sensitivity as well as chair time.

No abstract