Effects of buccal versus lingual surfaces, enamel conditioning procedures and storage duration on brackets debonding characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the influence of two enamel conditioning techniques on buccal and lingual tooth surfaces at two different times on debonding strength and tooth damage.

METHODS

The study included 50 premolars. Buccal and lingual surfaces of 10 teeth were scanned using SEM before (N=4) and after enamel conditioning by either acid etching or sandblasting prior to acid etching (N=6) for their morphology. The remaining 40 teeth were divided into 2 equal groups, differing in enamel conditioning prior to metallic bracket bonding on the buccal and lingual surfaces. Each group was equally subdivided into short-term (48h) or long-term (12m) water storage. Debonding strength was measured followed by SEM and EDAX for adhesive remnant index (ARI) and calcium remnant index (CRI) left on bracket bases. ANOVA with repeated measures was applied to the results.

RESULTS

The buccal enamel was rougher than the lingual one. The surface morphology after the two types of conditioning showed a different pattern. A significantly higher debonding strength was needed to debond the buccal brackets compared to the lingual ones (p<0.05). A significantly higher ARI (p<0.002) and higher CRI (p<0.005) were found in the lingual surface compared with the buccal. No differences were found in debonding strength ARI or CRI regarding the different conditioning or storage duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Lingual bonding leads to higher ARI and CRI than buccal bonding. Sandblasting prior to etching does not improve bonding strength for lingual or buccal bonding.