Logo image
Nano- and microscale evaluation of human enamel after different debonding methods
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Nano- and microscale evaluation of human enamel after different debonding methods

TianYou Wu, Mauro Farella, Guangzhao Guan, Richard David Cannon and Li Mei
American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, Vol.170(2), pp.228-236
18/04/2026
Handle:
https://hdl.handle.net/10523/50573

Abstract

Background: Numerous debonding methods are used in clinical practice to remove orthodontic brackets; it remains unclear, however, whether the most commonly used method is also the most appropriate. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of 6 commonly used debonding methods on enamel surface roughness, enamel volume loss, enamel color change, and debonding time. Methods: Metal brackets were bonded to the buccal surfaces of 60 extracted teeth and then removed using debonding pliers. The teeth were randomly assigned to 6 groups (n = 10), with each group undergoing adhesive removal with 1 of the following: (1) low-speed tungsten carbide bur (LS-TCB); (2) high-speed tungsten carbide bur (HS-TCB); (3) Sof-Lex discs; (4) fiberglass bur; (5) Enhance disc; or (6) adhesive removal pliers and pumice (ARP-P). Enamel roughness and nanotopography were assessed using atomic force microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, volume loss by micro-computed tomography, color change with a digital spectrophotometer, and debonding time was recorded. Data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance. Results: ARP-P, LS-TCB, and HS-TCB resulted in significantly increased enamel roughness (634.5 ± 88.4 nm, 488.7 ± 183.2 nm, and 302.1 ± 52.9 nm, respectively) compared with the control (prebracketing enamel surface, 164.3 ± 64.9 nm; P <0.01). HS-TCB caused the greatest enamel volume loss (0.93 ± 0.40 mm3), whereas the fiberglass bur caused the least (0.14 ± 0.10 mm3). All methods resulted in clinically detectable color changes (ΔE >3.7), with Sof-Lex discs causing a significantly greater change than other methods (ΔE = 13.4 ± 2.5; P <0.01). HS-TCB was significantly faster (44.4 ± 10.4 seconds) than the fiberglass bur method (83.7 ± 30.2 seconds; P = 0.003), whereas ARP-P was the slowest (92.3 ± 39.2 seconds; P <0.01). Conclusions: Debonding methods vary in their impact on enamel. Faster techniques, such as HS-TCB, cause greater damage, whereas gentler methods are slower but safer. Clinicians should prioritize enamel preservation over speed.
pdf
1-s2.0-S0889540626001514-main3.64 MBDownloadView
Published (Version of record) Open Access CC BY V4.0
url
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2026.02.019View
Published (Version of record) Open CC BY V4.0

Metrics

1 File views/ downloads
4 Record Views

Details

Logo image