Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size   Users Online: 67
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 123-127

Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing

Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, Unit of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Andrea Scribante
Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, Unit of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Section of Dentistry, University of Pavia, Piazzale Golgi 2, 27100 Pavia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.173425

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: To conduct an epidemiological survey of the orthodontic debonding techniques in Italy, and describe the most commonly used methods to remove the brackets and adhesive from the tooth surfaces. Materials and Methods: A survey consisting of 6 questions about bracket debonding methods and instruments used was emailed to 1000 orthodontists, who were members of the Italian Orthodontics Society (SIDO. Clinicians were characterized by different sex, age, origin, and professional experience. Results: Overall, 267 surveys were returned, representing a response rate of 26.7% of the participants interviewed. The 0.2% of the orthodontists responded, via email, confirming that they were not interested, while 3% of the questionnaires were sent back not completed. The 70.1% of the clinicians interviewed did not return any response. Overall, 64% of SIDO members (orthodontists) did not detect any enamel damage after debonding. The brackets used most frequently (89.14%) in clinical practice were the metal ones. The most commonly used pliers for bracket removal were cutters (37.08%) and bracket removal pliers (34.83%). For adhesive removal, low speed tungsten carbide burs under irrigation were the most widely utilized method for adhesive removal (40.08%), followed by high speed carbide burs (14.19%), and diamond burs (14.19%). The most frequently used instruments for polishing after debonding were rubber cups (36.70%) and abrasive discs (21.35%). The 31.21% of the orthodontists found esthetic enamel changes before bonding versus after debonding. Conclusions: This survey showed the high variability of different methods for bracket debonding, adhesive removal, and tooth polishing. The collected answers indicate that most orthodontists have developed their own armamentarium of debonding and polishing, basing their method on trials and errors.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded352    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 10    

Recommend this journal