Original Articles
Comparison of different bonding materials for laser debonding

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70020-XGet rights and content

Abstract

The laser-aided removal of ceramic brackets from enamel surfaces was compared between two different adhesives. The selected bonding materials were Bis-GMA composite resin and 4-META MMA resin. Debonding forces were measured as the shear bond strength, perpendicular to the brackets. Debonding force, debonding time, total illuminated laser energy, and Modified Adhesive Remnant Index were discussed. Laser illumination was very effective for debonding in both resin groups. Enamel fracture was not observed in either laser illuminated groups, whereas two teeth were cracked in the Bis-GMA control group. For MMA resin, debonding force was sufficiently decreased at 3 watts output, whereas 7 watts output was needed for Bis-GMA resin samples. Total illuminated energies until the removal of the brackets were statistically lower in the MMA groups than in the Bis-GMA groups. Laser-focused adhesives tended to be removed with the brackets in the Bis-GMA groups, whereas they tended to remain on the tooth surface in the MMA groups. We concluded that debonding MMA resin with a laser is safer than debonding Bis-GMA resin with a laser. (AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1995;108:267-73.)

Section snippets

Laser

The laser selected for this study was a CO2 (10.6 μm) laser (LX-20, Luxar, Bothell, Wash.). The illuminating output was controlled at 3 watts and 7 watts.

Brackets

Throughout this study, we used the most popular laser-aided debonding resistant ceramic bracket,7 polycrystalline alumina brackets (Transcend series 6000, Unitek/3M, Monrovia, Calif.). Maxillary premolar brackets were used.

Bonding materials

Two different bonding materials were selected for this study. One was a Bis-GMA composite resin, Concise (3M, St. Paul,

Control data (brackets debonded without laser)

Forty-three bonded teeth were prepared to confirm the efficiency of laser debonding. Twenty-three teeth were prepared with Concise and the other 20 with Super-Bond.

Enamel fracture occurred in two teeth in the Concise group. Complete bracket failure at the slot was observed in a tooth bonded by Concise. Therefore these three teeth were omitted from the data. The data obtained are summarized in Tables I and II.

The shear bond strength of the two control samples was not significantly different

Discussion

The effects of laser-aided ceramic brackets debonding were investigated with the use of a CO2 laser.

Conclusion

  • 1.

    Laser-aided debonding was very efficient for debonding ceramic brackets.

  • 2.

    No enamel fracture was observed in the laser-debonding groups, whereas two teeth of the Bis-GMA (Concise) control group were fractured at debonding.

  • 3.

    MMA (Super-Bond) resin was easier to debond with the laser beam than Bis-GMA (Concise). The applied energy was significantly lower in MMA (Super-Bond) than Bis-GMA (Concise).

  • 4.

    Laser-focused adhesives tended to be removed with the bracket in the Bis-GMA (Concise) groups, whereas

References (11)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (42)

  • Effect of the gel form of eucalyptol on the shear bonding forces of orthodontic brackets

    2014, Journal of Dental Sciences
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, some difficulties still exist in terms of bracket debonding. Many methods, such as ultrasonic,2–5 electrothermal,6–8 and laser9–12 debonding techniques, were developed to overcome these problems. However, these methods still have certain disadvantages such as a rise in pulp temperature8 and the requirement of expensive equipment.

  • Debonding Protocols

    2023, Debonding and Fixed Retention in Orthodontics: An Evidence-Based Clinical Guide
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text