Research Article

The Effect of Volatile Oils on De-Bonding of Polycarbonate Bracket Reinforced with Ceramic Filler: A Quantitative Study (Part 1)

Amal Ibrahim Linjawi
King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
Hayder Abdalla Hashim
King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejdent.2022.3.2.165

Read Counter
179

Downloads
193

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2022-02-05
Published 2022-03-02

Read counter = 179 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

Introduction: The introduction of esthetic brackets is a new clinical approach in the field of orthodontics. Two main types of esthetic brackets have been developed and became widely available; the polycarbonate brackets, and the ceramic brackets. Both types have faced two significant de-bonding problems: (1) enamel and bracket fracture. The two problems have been well documented and continue to be of concern to clinicians.

Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate quantitatively the effect of three volatile oils and their combinations on the de-bonding of ceramic brackets.

Material and Method: Polycarbonate brackets reinforced with ceramic filler were bonded to one hundred and eighty (180) sound extracted human premolars using Transbond XT light curing adhesive. The teeth were then distributed into the following groups according to the type of volatile oil and period of application: clove oil (5 & 30 minutes), peppermint oil (5 & 30 minutes), Black seed volatile oil (5 & 30 minutes), and mixture of peppermint + Black seed volatile oils (5 & 30 minutes) in addition to control group. The brackets were then de-bonded using the Instron Universal Testing Machine and the de-bonding force was recorded for each type of the volatile oils in different times of application.

Result: The result revealed that the Black seed volatile oil gave the lowest de-bonding force in 5 minutes and 30 minutes of application whereas the mixture of the Black seed oil + peppermint oils gave the highest force in both time of application. Further, the peppermint oil application for 5-minute was found to be in the second rank whereas the Clove oil was in the third rank. Furthermore, in the 30 minutes of application the Clove oil was in the second rank whereas the peppermint was found to be in the third rank and the combination of Black seed oil + peppermint oil shows the highest debonding force.

Conclusion: Despite the limitation of the present study result, an assumption has been drawn from the results obtained that (1) the 5- minutes of black seed or peppermint volatile oils application can be considered the best debonding agent compared to the other volatile oils; (2) the clove oil can be used after de-bonding to facilitate the final cleansing-up of enamel surface. To confirm the latter assumption, further investigations are needed.

Keywords: Debonding, polycarbonate bracket reinforced with ceramic filler, quantitative study, tensile force, volatile Oils

References

  1. Swartz ML. Ceramic brackets. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics. 1988; 22: 82-88.
     Google Scholar
  2. Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: Something old, something new, a review. Seminars in Orthodontics. 1997; 3: 178-88.
     Google Scholar
  3. Eliades T, Johnston WM, Eliades G. Direct light transmission through ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 1995; 107: 11-19.
     Google Scholar
  4. de Oliveira CB, Maia LG, Santos-Pinto A, Gandini Junior LG. In vitro study of color stability of polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2014; 19: 114-21.
     Google Scholar
  5. Sinha PK, Nanda RS. The effect of different bonding and debonding techniques on debonding ceramic orthodontic brackets. Am. J Orthodo Dentofac Orthoped. 1997; 112: 132-37.
     Google Scholar
  6. Cochrane NJ, Lo TWG, Adams GG, Schneider PM. Quantitative analysis of enamel on debonded orthodontic brackets. Am. J. Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 2017; 152: 312-19.
     Google Scholar
  7. Ghazanfari R, Nokhbatolfoghahaei H, Alikhasi M. Laser-aided ceramic bracket debonding:A comprehensive review. Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences. 2016; 7: 2-11.
     Google Scholar
  8. O’Brien WJ. Dental Materials and Their Selection. 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1997; 16: 199.
     Google Scholar
  9. Graber TM, Eliades T, Athanasiou AE, editors. Risk Management in Orthodontics: Experts’ Guide to Malpractice. Chicago: Quintessence; 2004: 36-40.
     Google Scholar
  10. Britton JC, Mclnnes P, Weinberg R, Ledoux WR, Retief DH. Shear bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel. Am.J.Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990; 98: 348-53.
     Google Scholar
  11. Storm ER Debonding ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1990. 24: 91-94.
     Google Scholar
  12. Gardner A, Hobson R. Variations in acid-etched patterns with different acids and etch times. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2001; 120: 64-67.
     Google Scholar
  13. Maskeroni AJ, Meyers CE, Lorton L. Ceramic bracket bonding: A comparison of bond strength with polyacrylic acid and phosphoric acid enamel conditioning. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990; 97: 168-75.
     Google Scholar
  14. Winchester LJ. Bond strengths of five different ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod. 1999; 113: 293-305.
     Google Scholar
  15. Eliades T, Eliades G, Brantley WA, Johnston WM. Polymerization efficiency of chemically cured and visible light-cured orthodontic adhesives: Degree of cure .Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 1995; 108: 294-301.
     Google Scholar
  16. Krell KV, Courey JM, Bishara SE. Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1993; 103: 258-66.
     Google Scholar
  17. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Stein H, Miethke RR, Nakata M. Histologic investigation of the human pulp after the remodebonding of metal and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 1992; 102: 410-17.
     Google Scholar
  18. Tocchio RM, Williams PT, Mayer FJ,Standing KG. Laser debonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1993; 103: 155-62.
     Google Scholar
  19. Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Comparisons of the effectiveness of pliers with narrow and wide blades in debonding ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 1993; 103: 253-57.
     Google Scholar
  20. Arici S, Minors C. The force levels required to mechanically debond ceramic brackets: an in vitro comparative study. Eur J Orthod. 2000; 21: 327-34.
     Google Scholar
  21. Starling KE, Love BJ. Plasticization of adhesive to improve debonding of ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1993; 27: 319-22.
     Google Scholar
  22. Larmour CJ, McCabe JF, Gordon PH. Notching of orthodontic bonding resin to facilitate ceramic bracket debond an ex vivo investigation. Br J Orthod. 1998b; 25: 289-91.
     Google Scholar
  23. Waldron N, Causton BE. A study of the fracture toughness of a light cured adhesive. J. Dent. Res. 1991; 70: 696.
     Google Scholar
  24. Larmour CJ, Chadwick RG. Effects of a commercial orthodontic debonding agent upon the surface micro-hardness of two orthodontic bonding resins. J Dent. 1995; 23: 37-40.
     Google Scholar
  25. Larmour CJ, McCabe JF, Gordon PH. An ex vivo investigation into the effects of chemical solvents on the debond behavior of ceramic orthodontic brackets. Br J Orthod, 1998a; 25: 35-39.
     Google Scholar
  26. Powell TL, Huget EF. Effects of cements and Eugenol on properties of a visible light-cured composite. Pediatric Dentistry. 1993; 16: 104-07.
     Google Scholar
  27. Nimplod P, Tansalarak R, Sornsuwan T. Effect of the different debonding strength of metal and ceramic brackets on the degree of enamel micro crack healing. Dental Press J Orthod. 2021; 26 (3): e2119177.
     Google Scholar
  28. Hobson RS, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Booth TA. Acid-etch patterns on the buccal surface of human permanent teeth. Arch Oral Biol. 2002; 47(5): 407-12.
     Google Scholar
  29. Senawongse P, Sattabanasuk V, Shimada Y, Otsuki M, Tagami J. Bond strengths of current adhesive systems on intact and ground enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004; 16 (2): 107-15.
     Google Scholar
  30. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod. 1994, 21: 33-43.
     Google Scholar
  31. Bakry ASI, Abbassy MA, Linjawi A, Hassan AH. Method for debonding of orthodontic metal brackets with Eugenol Emulgel. United States Patent. US 2019 /0110865, 18 April 2019.
     Google Scholar
  32. Millstein PL, Nathanson D. Effect of eugenol and eugenol cements on cured composite resin. J Prosth. Dent. 1983; 50: 211-15.
     Google Scholar
  33. Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon J, Warren JJ. Enamel Cracks and Ceramic Bracket Failure during Debonding In Vitro study. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78: 1078-83.
     Google Scholar
  34. Ulusoy C, Müjdeci A, Gökay O. The effect of herbal teas on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Eur. J Orthod. 2009; 31: 385-9.
     Google Scholar
  35. Turk SE, Isci D, Ozkalayci N, Turk T. Debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different conditioning methods. Eur. J Orthodo. 2009; 31(1): 84-89.
     Google Scholar
  36. Farzanegan F, Zebarjad SM, Alizadeh S, Ahrari F. Pain reduction after initial Arch-wire placement in orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial. Am. J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped. 2012; 141: 169–73.
     Google Scholar
  37. Kokich VG. Do you have an evidence-based practice? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped. 2013; 143: 1.
     Google Scholar
  38. Türk SE, Yilmaz H. Ceramic Brackets Revisited. Current Approaches in Orthodontics. Chapter 2. Intech Open. 2018: 5-22.
     Google Scholar