Laser-Aided Ceramic Bracket Debonding: A Comprehensive Review

Ghazanfari, Rezvaneh; Nokhbatolfoghahaei, Hanieh; Alikhasi, Marzieh

doi:10.15171/jlms.2016.02

Cited by 30 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the energy might be greatly absorbed by adhesive bonding resin compromised of water or residual monomer. 11 Selecting cement with appropriate absorptive features for removing crowns, simplifies the procedure. Rechmann's phase 1 study analyzed Variolink Veneer, Variolink II, Multilink, and SpeedCEM bonding cement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, they are considered safe to ablate dental hard tissues (enamel, dentin). 11 This method has many advantages and may be affected by several clinical factors including chemical composition and type of the ceramic, thickness of the restoration, resin cement type and shade, ceramic shade and opacity, and laser parameters such as power, pulse duration, frequency and irradiation time. 7,9,[12][13][14][15] The aim of this study is to give a comprehensive literature review on laser-aided ceramic restoration debonding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laser Aided Ceramic Restoration Removal: A Comprehensive Review

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: All-ceramic restorations are being widely used due to its various advantages. However, they have restricted durability and may have to be removed. The conventional procedure for removal is grinding the restoration with rotary instruments which are considered time-consuming and inconvenient. A newer advantageous method is the application of lasers for debonding ceramics from the tooth surface. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive literature review on laser-aided ceramic restorations debonding. Methods: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Seven articles from 2011 to 2018 were identified. Studies were assessed for the efficacy of laser application and the amount of pulpal temperature rise. Results: Studies selected were categorized according to variables including shear bond strength, debonding time and intrapulpal temperature. Oztoprak and Iseri investigated that erbium-doped yttrium, aluminum, and garnet (Er:YAG) laser application reduced shear bond strength of ceramic laminate veneers. The time of debonding took an average of 190 seconds in Rechmann’s study and 106 seconds in Morford’s study. One of the main issues while using the laser is thermal irritation of the pulp. A 5.5°C temperature increase may cause pulpal damage according to Zach and Cohen. Philips et al and Rechmann et al reported no intrapulpal harm due to temperature increase. Additionally, Phillips et al demonstrated that the laser setting affects both the debonding time and the temperature alterations and that a laser adjustment of 2.5 W/25 Hz would be the best safest group. Conclusion: Removal of ceramic crowns and veneers from tooth surfaces can be successfully done by Er:YAG laser application in a less time-consuming procedure and without any harm to the underlying dentin. However, a temperature rise in the pulp may occur which could be overcome by adequate air water cooling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser Aided Ceramic Restoration Removal: A Comprehensive Review

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, Er:YAG lasers are commonly used to remove caries and treat the surfaces of restorative materials . Likewise, Er:YAG lasers have also been used to debond ceramic brackets . Studies have proposed that Er:YAG lasers light be transmitted through the ceramic brackets and be selectively absorbed by water molecules and residual monomers in the resin cements, resulting in reduced bond strengths and ceramic brackets debonding from the teeth surfaces.…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…[21][22][23] Likewise, Er:YAG lasers have also been used to debond ceramic brackets. 24,25 Studies 26,27 have proposed that Er:YAG lasers light be transmitted through the ceramic brackets and be selectively absorbed by water molecules and residual monomers in the resin cements, resulting in reduced bond strengths and ceramic brackets debonding from the teeth surfaces. Based in these mechanisms, the first report regarding the use of erbium laser in the removal of FDPs appeared nearly a decade ago.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser‐assisted removal of all ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A comprehensive review

Kellesarian

Malignaggi

Aldosary

et al. 2017

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefits of lasers over mechanical instrumentation for crown removal encompass efficient restoration retrievability without restoration or teeth surfaces damages; and relatively easier and time effective procedure with no prerequisite for anesthetic agents. It is however imperative for clinicians to be well-trained and exhibit adequate knowledge regarding recommended power settings and laser-safety parameters with reference to interactions between light and different tissues and ceramics.

show abstract

“…11 Also, physic methods involving ultrasonic vibration or carbon dioxide and Nd:YAG laser have been used to avoid damage of the enamel. 5,21 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage on tooth enamel after removal of orthodontic adhesive by Arkansas’ stone and tungsten carbide burs

Pinho¹,

Pinto²,

Mesquita³

et al. 2017

j.rpemd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oObjectives: The main aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two different methods to remove orthodontic composite adhesives from enamel concerning the surface damage and remnant composite adhesive on the surfaces. Methods:Human molars were stored in buffer solution at room temperature before bonding the brackets. Teeth were ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water before bonding procedure.Ninety two brackets were randomly bonded to the buccal surface of twenty three molars using a composite-based adhesive system. After 15 days, the orthodontic composite adhesives were removed by using Arkansas' stone or multi-blade tungsten burs. After debonding process, the remnant composite adhered to the tooth as well as the teeth surfaces were analyzed by photographic images at x40 magnification concerning the (ARI) adhesive remnant or (SRI) surface roughness index. Also, enamel surfaces were inspected by field emission guns scanning electron microscopy (FEGSEM) before bonding and after bracket detachment.The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS ® Statistics vs.18.0, considering a significance level of 0.05 to one-way ANOVA. Tukey's test was used for multiple comparisons and Chi-square tests were used to analyze the association between categorical variables.Results: ARI results revealed no statistically significant differences between the two methods of bracket removal (p=0.283). Considering SRI, statistically significant differences were detected between the two procedures (p<0.001) considering all worn surfaces revealed lower surface roughness after removal of adhesive by Arkansas stone than that recorded on worn surfaces after removal using tungsten carbide burs. Conclusion:The removal of orthodontic adhesive promoted less damage on enamel surfaces by using Arkansas stone at low rotation. Nevertheless, finishing procedures can decrease the roughness on enamel without additional damage. Conclusão: Menor dano ao esmalte foi promovido pela remoção de adesivo ortodóntico com uso da pedra de Arkansas. Entretanto, polimento adicional diminui a rugosidade da superfície sem danos adicionais ao esmalte.

show abstract

Laser-Aided Ceramic Bracket Debonding: A Comprehensive Review

Cited by 30 publications

References 22 publications

Laser Aided Ceramic Restoration Removal: A Comprehensive Review

Laser Aided Ceramic Restoration Removal: A Comprehensive Review

Laser‐assisted removal of all ceramic fixed dental prostheses: A comprehensive review

Damage on tooth enamel after removal of orthodontic adhesive by Arkansas’ stone and tungsten carbide burs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About