##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##


Nicolás Arboleda Ariza

Isaac Wasserman Milhem

Diana Katherina Reina Velosa

Ingrid Quintero Quinche

Abstract

RESUMEN. Antecedentes: A través del tiempo se han propuesto diferentes técnicas para realizar la remoción del adhesivo y resina remanentes luego de retirar los brackets, pero no existe un consenso entre los diferentes autores. Objetivo: el propósito de esta revisión sistemática fue identificar cuál es la técnica más adecuada para evitar injuria al esmalte durante la remoción de la resina remanente después de retirados los brackets. Métodos: Esta revisión sistemática se basó en los lineamientos de PRISMA, Para recolectar la evidencia publicada se realizó una búsqueda electrónica en diferentes bases de datos. Resultados: Se encontraron 8 artículos con una evidencia media (> de 9) los cuales fueron considerados en esta revisión sistemática. Al parecer la remoción de resina y adhesivo remanentes con ultrasonido, fresa de carburo de tungsteno de alta velocidad y piedras blancas generan la mayor pérdida de esmalte, mientras que 6 artículos proponen la fresa de tungsteno de baja velocidad como la mejor técnica. Conclusiones: Se requieren estudios aleatorizados, con grupo control, doble-ciego y una técnica de análisis del esmalte estandarizada para poder generar un nivel de evidencia alto y dar recomendaciones más acertadas para el clínico.ABSTRACT. Background: Over time different techniques have been proposed for the removal of the remaining adhesive and resin after the removal of brackets, but there is no consensus among authors. Objective: Evaluate the most appropriate technique to prevent injury to the enamel during the removal of the remaining resin after the brackets are removed. Methods: This systematic review is based on the guidelines of PRISMA, to collect the published evidence there was a various electronic databases search. Results: There were only 8 items with medium evidence (> 9) which were considered in this systematic review. Apparently removing remaining adhesive resin with ultrasound, tungsten carbide cutter high speed and white stones generate the greatest loss of enamel, while 6 articles propose the tungsten bur at low speed as the best technique. Conclusions: Randomized studies with control group, double-blind and a standardized technique of enamel analysis are required to generate a high level of evidence and give more accurate recommendations for clinicians.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords
References
1. Pont HB, Özcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y. Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2010 Oct;138(4):387-389. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.028
2. Arhun A, Arman A. Effects of Orthodontic Mechanics on Tooth Enamel: A Review. Semin Orthod. 2007;13(4):281-291. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2007.08.009
3. Attar N, Taner TU, Tülümen E, Korkmaz Y. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded using conventional vs one and two step self-etching/adhesive systems. Angle Orthod. 2007 May;77(3):518-23.
4. Legler LR, Retief DH, Bradley EL. Effects of phosphoric acid concentration and etch duration on enamel depth of etch: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Aug;98(2):154–160. Doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(90)70009-2
5. Brown CR, Way DC. Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1978 Dec;74(6):663–671. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90005-2
6. Horiuchi S, Kaneko K, Mori H, Kawakami E, Tsukahara T, Yamamoto K, Hamada K, Asaoka K, Tanaka E. Enamel bonding of self-etching and phosphoric acid-etching orthodontic adhesives in simulated clinical conditions: debonding force and enamel surface. Dent Mater J. 2009 Jul;28(4):419–425. Doi: Http://doi.org/10.412/dmj.28.419.
7. Bjørn Ø, Morten F. The Enamel Surface and Bonding in Orthodontics. Semin Orthod. 2010;16(1):37-48. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2009.12.003
8. Shinya M, Shinya A, Lassila LV, Gomi H, Varrela J, Vallittu PK, Shinya A. Treated enamel surface patterns associated with five orthodontic adhesive systems—surface morphology and shear bond strength. Dent Mater J. 2008 Jan;27(1):1–6. Doi: 10.4012/dmj.27.1
9. Eminkahyagila N, Arman A, Cetinşahin A, Karabulut E. Effect of Resin-removal Methods on Enamel and Shear Bond Strength of Rebonded Brackets. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(2):314-21.
10. Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: Clinical application. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1977;71(6): 651-665. Doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90281-0
11. Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthodontics. 1979; 49(1): 1-10.
12. Rouleau BD, Marshall GW, Cooley RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1982;81(5):423-426. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(82)90081-1
13. Zachrisson BU, Artun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1979;75(2):121-13. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181-7
14. Van Waes H, Matter T, Krejci I. Three-dimensional measurement of enamel loss caused by bonding and debonding orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1997; 112(6): 666-9.
15. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding and cleanup with use of self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2004; 126(6): 717-724. Doi: 10.1016/S0889540604005967
16. Fitzpatrick DA, Way DC. The effects of wear, acid etching, and bond removal on human enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1977 Dec;72(2):671-681. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(77)90334-7
17. Vinay P, Chandrashekhar. Debonding of orthodontic brackets-a clinical tip. Clinical Techniques Annals and Essences of Dentistry.2011;3(1):56-59.
18. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel - current knowledge and future perspectives - a systematic review. Med Sci Monit. 2014 Oct 20; 20:1991-2001. doi: 10.12659/MSM.890912.
19. Turpin, DL. Update CONSORT and PRISMA documents now available. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010; 137: 721-2. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.04.009
20. Lagravère MO, Major, PW, Flores-Mir C. Long term skeletal change with rapid maxillary expansion: a systematic review. Angle Orthod, 2005; 75: 1046-52.
21. Krell K, Courey J, Bishara SE. Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques enamel loss and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1993;103(3):258-266. Doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70007-B
22. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod.2012 Feb;34(1):25-32. Doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq128
23. Hong YH, Lew KK. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of enamel surface following five composite removal methods after debonding. Eur J Orthod.1995 Abr;17(2):121-128. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/17.2.121
24. Howell S, Weekes W. An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Aust Dent J. 1990 Jun;35(3):245-252. Doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1990.tb05402.x
25. Pus MD, Way DC. Enamel loss due to orthodontic bonding with fill and unfilled resins using various clean-up techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1980 Mar;77(3):269-283. Doi:10.1016/0002-9416(80)90082-2
26. Ireland A.J, Hosein I. Enamel loss at bond-up and clean-up following the use of a conventional light-cured composite and a resin-modified glass polyalkenoate cement. Eur J Orthod.2005 Aug;27(4):413-419. Doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji031
27. Oliver RG, Griffiths J. Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding-time taking and surface enamel appearance. Br J Orthod. 1992 May;19(2):131-137. Doi: 10.1179/bjo.19.2.131
28. Vieira AC, Pinto RA, Chevitarese O, Almeida MA. Polishing after debracketing: its influence upon enamel surface. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1993 Fall;18(1):7-11. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512012000400017
29. Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F. Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child. 1998 Sept-Oct;65(5):313-317.
30. Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different bonding techniques on the enamel surface: An in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1995 Sep;108(3):284-293. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70023-4
31. Ozer T, Başaran G, Kama JD. Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Mar;137(3):368-374. Doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.025
32. Ulusoy C. Comparison of finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal after debonding. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 May-Jun;17(3):209-215. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572009000300015
33. Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(2):103-10.
34. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle of Orthod. 2010 Nov;80(6):1081-8. DOI:10.2319/012610-55.1
35. Miksić M, Slaj M, Mestrovic S. Stereomicroscope analysis of enamel surface after orthodontic bracket debonding. Coll Antropol. 2003;27 Suppl 2:83-9.
36. Radlanski RJ. A New carbide finishing bur for bracket debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2001 Jul;62(4):296-304. DOI: 10.1007/PL00001937
37. Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surfaces roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004 Jun; 26(3): 333-8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/012610-55.1
38. Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1984 Apr;85(4):333-340. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8
39. Zachrisson BU, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1979 Feb;75(2):121-127. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181-7
How to Cite
Arboleda Ariza, N., Wasserman Milhem, I., Reina Velosa, D., & Quintero Quinche, I. (2018). Evaluación de la superficie del esmalte luego de la descementación de brackets metálicos. Revisión sistemática / Enamel Surface Assessment after Metallic Bracket Debonding. A Systematic Review. Universitas Odontologica, 36(77). https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.uo36-77.esed
Section
Clinical Practice
Most read articles by the same author(s)