ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2025
Evaluation of dental enamel after debonding of sapphire brackets and removal of orthodontic adhesive remnants.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIatrogenic effects on dental enamel are common during the debonding of aesthetic brackets and the removal of residual adhesive.
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of these procedures on enamel integrity via advanced imaging techniques.
methodsHuman premolar crowns (n=60) were bonded with sapphire brackets and debonded using 346R pliers (G1, n=30) and 346B pliers (G2, n=30). Adhesive removal was performed with a multilaminated zirconia bur (EG1, n=30) and a multilaminated carbide bur (EG2, n=30). Surface roughness was assessed via optical profilometry; enamel loss and microcracks, via microcomputed tomography; and the adhesive remnant index (ARI), via optical coherence tomography. After normality and homogeneity tests, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests were applied (p<0.05).
resultsThe 346R plier presented a slightly higher ARI than the 346B plier. Both removal methods significantly increased surface roughness, without causing enamel microcracks. The zirconia bur demonstrated greater adhesive removal efficiency but was associated with increased enamel loss.
conclusionsVariations in the shape and force vector of the pliers did not affect enamel outcomes. The zirconia bur system at low speed was more efficient at removing orthodontic adhesive remnants, resulting in a lower final ARI on the enamel surface, and none of the procedures caused enamel microcracks, as evaluated by microcomputed tomography.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.