Evaluation of Adhesive Remnant Index after metal brackets removal using AutoCAD software

Open access


Introduction After the completion of treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances, it is necessary to remove the brackets and bands from teeth using an appropriate method. The aim of this study was to determine the most common way of bond failure between teeth and metal brackets, as well as to compare bond failure between the brackets and upper and lower premolars. Material and Method Metal brackets were bonded with Aspire composite material on 154 human premolars, extracted for orthodontic purposes. After debonding, the surface of remaining adhesive on the teeth and brackets was measured. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was used to estimate bond failure between teeth and metal brackets. Results The average size of remaining adhesive surface after removing brackets from the upper premolars was 12.06 mm2, while it was 9.32 mm2 on the lower premolars. The average size of the remaining adhesive surface area on the brackets removed from the upper premolars was 0.37 mm2, while it was 2.08 mm2 on the brackets removed from lower premolars. A statistically significant difference was found between these values. The most common score of ARIteeth was 3 (85.71%) and the most frequent score of ARIbrackets was 0 (85.71%). Conclusion The most common way of bond failure between teeth and metal brackets was between the bracket base and adhesive surface. A statistically significant difference was found between the values of the size of residual adhesive surface on the upper and lower premolars as well as on the brackets debonded from them.

1. Chen-Sheng C, Ming-Lun H, Kin-Di C, Shou-Hsin K, Ping-Ting C, Yih-Wen G. Failure analysis: Enamel fracture after debonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78:1071-7. [DOI: 10.2319/091907-449.1] [PMID: 18947273]

2. Ireland AJ, McDonald F. The Ortodontic Patient:Teratment and Biomechanics.Datastatus. Beograd; 2010.

3. Cakmak F, Kocak S, Kocak MM, Turk ES, Turk T. Comparison of shear bond strength of ceramic brackets using either self-etching primer or conventional primer after intracoronal bleahing. Turk J Orthod. 2015; 28:48-54. [DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.15-00006R2]

4. Flores T, Mayoral JR, Giner L, Puigdollers A. Comparison of enamel- bracket bond strength using direct- and indirect-bonding techniques with a self-etching ion releasing S-PRG filler. Dent Mat J. 2015; 34:41-7. [DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2014-138] [PMID: 25748457]

5. Zanini MM, Nassar CA, Nassar PO, Busato PMR, Favarao J, Busato MCA. Periodontal conditions in orthodontic patients using direct and indirect bonding techniques: A randomized study. J Dent Oral Hyg. 2016; 8:59-65. [DOI: 10.5897/JDOH2015.0176]

6. Atashi MHA, Khosravi S, Pakdel SMV. Clinical survival of rebonded brackets with different ARI scores. Adv Biosci Clin Med. 2016; 4:22-6. [DOI: 10.7575/aiac.abcmed.]

7. Mirzakouchaki B, Shirazi S, Sharghi R, Shirazi S, Moghimi M, Shahrbaf S. Shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic brackets bonded with conventional acidetch and self-etch primer systems: An in-vivo study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016; 8:38-43. [DOI: 10.4317/jced.52658] [PMID: 26855704]

8. Guiraldo RD, Berger SB, Rocha FD, Pereira GMR, Aleixo AR, Correr AB. Evaluation of shear strength of brackets with different dental composites and enamel roughness. App Adh Sci. 2016; 4:1-8. [DOI: 10.1186/s40563-016-0065-5]

9. Hellak A, Rusdea P, Schauseil M, Stein S, Steiner HKM. Enamel shear bond strength of two orthodontic self-etching bonding systems compared to TransbondTM XT. J Orofacial Orthoped. 2016; 77:391-9. [DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0046-0] [PMID: 27582286]

10. Henkin FS, Macedo EOD, Santos KS, Schwarzbach M, Samuel SMW, Mundstock KS. In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of different metal brackets. Dent Press J Orthod. 2016; 21:67-73. [DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.6.067-073.oar]

11. Scribante A, Contreras-Bulnes R, Montasser M, Vallitu PK. Orthodontics, bracket materials, adhesive systems and their bond strength. Bio Med Res Int. 2016; 2016:1-3. [DOI: 10.1155/2016/1329814]

12. Singh SK, Kumari S. Evaluation of adhesive remnant index (ARI) using Transbond XT and Self Etching Primer. J Res Adv Dent. 2014; 3:200-7. [DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0466:EOANSP]2.0.CO;2] [PMID: 16637728]

13. Goel A, Singh A, Gupta T, Gambhir RS. Evaluation of surface roughness of enamel after various bonding and clean-up procedures on enamel bonded with three different bonding agents: An in-vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017; 9:608-16. [DOI: 10.4317/jced.53237] [PMID: 28512535]

14. Tiwari A, Shyagali T, Kohli S, Joshi R, Gupta A, Tiwari R. Effect of dental chair light on enamel bonding of orthodontic brackets using ligt cured based adhesive system: An in-vitro study. Acta Inform Med. 2016; 24:237-41. [DOI: 10.5455/aim.2016.24.317-321]

15. Ozturk B, Malkoc S, Koyuturk AE, Catalbas B, Ozer F. Influence of different tooth types on the bond strength of two orthodontic adhesive systems. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30:407-12. [DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn006]

16. Hobson RS, McCabe JF, Hogg SD. Bond strength to surface enamel for different tooth types. Dent Mat. 2001; 17:184-9. [DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00068-3] [PMID: 11163390]

17. Zanarini M, Gracco A, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR, Bonetti GA. Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83:885-91. [DOI: 10.2319/121112-930.1]

18. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1985; 85:333-40. [DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8]

19. Montasser MA, Drummondb JL. Reliability of the Adhesive Remnant Index Score System with Different Magnifications. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79:773-6. [DOI: 10.2319/080108-398.1]

20. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tandecka K, Szatkiewicz T, Sporniak-Tutak K, Grocholewicz K. Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes. Head Face Med. 2014; 10:1-6. [DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-10-37] [PMID: 25208969]

21. Kechagia A, Zinelis S, Pandis N, Athanasiou AE, Eliades T. The effect of orthodontic adhesive and bracket-base design in adhesive remnant index on enamel. J World Fed Orthod. 2015; 4:18-22. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2014.12.002]

22. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34:25-32. [DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq128] [PMID: 21228118]

23. Leea M, Kanavakisb G. Comparison of shear bond strength and bonding time of a novel flash-free bonding system. Angle Orthod. 2016; 86:265-70. [DOI: 10.2319/011715-37.1] [PMID: 25970652]

24. Faria EM, Guiraldo RD, Berger SB, Correr AB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Contreras EF, et al. In vivo evaluation of the surface roughness and morphology of enamel bracket removal and polishing by different techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 147:324-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.10.033] [PMID: 25726399]

25. Bonetti GA, Zanarini M, Parenti SI, Lattuca M, Marchionni S, Gatto MR. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: An in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140:696-702. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.02.027] [PMID: 22051490]

26. Santos Oliveira BL, Costa AR, Correr AB, Crepaldi MV, Correr-Sobrinho L, Bento dos Santos JC. Influence of adhesive and bonding material on the bond strenght of bracket to bovine tooth. Braz J Oral Sci. 2017; 16:1-7. [DOI: 10.20396/bjos.v16i1.8650493]

Journal Information


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 137 137 50
PDF Downloads 94 94 45