Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Enamel damage depending on the method of bracket removal].

Authors: H, Fischer-Brandies; L, Kremers; C, Reicheneder; G, Kluge; K, Hüsler;

[Enamel damage depending on the method of bracket removal].

Abstract

Two different methods of removing brackets, on the one side by torsion and on the other by bending, were compared for the purpose of analyzing the respective enamel lesions. Each test group consisted of 19 extracted human molars with metal brackets attached to the molars by means of the "concise etching technique". Bracket removal was standardized through the use of a Wolpert "Universalprüfmaschine TZZ 707" with modified torsion and bending mechanism. A scanning electron microscope was used to analyze the enamel surface. When using the torsion method, the mean extension of the enamel lesions was 48.3% of the adhesive free enamel surface. These lesions often reached into the deeper enamel layers and were mainly to be found on the broad side of the bonded area. On the other hand, when using the bending method, the enamel lesions were less frequent. They were mainly superficial and were confined almost exclusively to the pressure zones. The stress required to remove the brackets and the stress distribution were calculated on mechanical models and these results corresponded well with the enamel lesions observed on the molars. It can thus be concluded that the method of removing brackets is clinically relevant in relation to enamel lesions.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Dental Stress Analysis, Dental Debonding, Orthodontic Brackets, Surface Properties, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Humans, Dental Enamel

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    4
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
4
Average
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!