Orthodontic Bracket Debonding: Risk of Enamel Fracture

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2013 Mar 19

PMID 23504206

Citations 6

Authors

Christof Holberg

Philipp Winterhalder

Nikola Holberg

Andrea Wichelhaus

Ingrid Rudzki-Janson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Until now, it is not clear if various procedures of bracket debonding differ with regard to their risk of enamel fracture. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare these procedures biomechanically for assessing the risk of complications.

Materials And Methods: An anisotropic finite element method (FEM) model of the mandibular bone including periodontal ligament, enamel, dentin, and an orthodontic bracket was created. The morphology based on the CT data of an anatomical specimen. Typical loading conditions were defined for each method of bracket debonding (compression, shearing off, twisting off). Shortly before the adhesive's break, the induced stress in enamel, periodontal ligament, and in the alveolar bone was measured. The statistical analysis of the obtained values was performed in SPSS 19.0.

Results: Relatively high stresses occurred in the enamel using frontal torque (max. 44.18 MPa). With shearing off, the stresses were also high (max. 41.96 MPa), and additionally high loads occurred on the alveolar bone as well (max. 11.79 MPa). Moderate maximum values in enamel and alveolar bone appeared during the compression of the bracket wings (max. 37.12 MPa) and during debonding by lateral torque (max. 35.18 MPa).

Conclusions: The present simulation results indicate that the risk of enamel fracture may depend on the individual debonding procedure. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm that.

Clinical Relevance: For patients with prior periodontal disease or loosened teeth, a debonding procedure by compression of the bracket wings is recommended, since here the load for the periodontal structures of the tooth is lowest.

Citing Articles

The impact of temperature on the shear bond strength of conventional multi-step and self-adhesive orthodontic adhesive systems: an in-vitro study.

Kazlauskaite G, Vaitiekunas R, Lopatiene K, Jutas A, Palesik B, Smailiene D BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):189.

PMID: 39910542 PMC: 11796248. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-05515-3.

Scanning electron microscopy analysis of metallic and aesthetic bracket meshes before and after debonding.

Rodriguez-Chavez J, Flores-Ruiz H, Flores-Ledesma A, Garcia-Perez A, Bazan-Diaz L Korean J Orthod. 2025; 55(1):15-25.

PMID: 39849963 PMC: 11788184. DOI: 10.4041/kjod24.073.

The effect of frontal trauma on the edentulous mandible with four different interforaminal implant-prosthodontic anchoring configurations. A 3D finite element analysis.

Krennmair S, Malek M, Stehrer R, Stahler P, Otto S, Postl L Eur J Med Res. 2023; 28(1):608.

PMID: 38115128 PMC: 10729383. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01580-y.

Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance.

Ok U, Aksakalli S, Eren E, Kechagia N Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 25(6):3987-3999.

PMID: 33404765 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03729-z.

Priming and bonding metal, ceramic and polycarbonate brackets.

Kilponen L, Varrela J, Vallittu P Biomater Investig Dent. 2020; 6(1):61-72.

PMID: 31998873 PMC: 6964778. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2019.1684823.

References

Woodall N, Tadepalli S, Qian F, Grosland N, Marshall S, Southard T . Effect of miniscrew angulation on anchorage resistance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139(2):e147-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.08.017. View

Liu T, Chang C, Wong T, Liu J . Finite element analysis of miniscrew implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141(4):468-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.11.012. View

OMahony A, Williams J, Spencer P . Anisotropic elasticity of cortical and cancellous bone in the posterior mandible increases peri-implant stress and strain under oblique loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(6):648-57. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120614.x. View

Borschel G, Kia K, Kuzon Jr W, Dennis R . Mechanical properties of acellular peripheral nerve. J Surg Res. 2003; 114(2):133-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-4804(03)00255-5. View

Bishara S, Fehr D . Ceramic brackets: something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod. 1998; 3(3):178-88. DOI: 10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80068-0. View

Habibi M, Hosseinzadeh Nik T, Hooshmand T . Comparison of debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(5):675-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.040. View

Odegaard J, Segner D . Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94(3):201-6. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90028-5. View

Faust J, Grego G, Fan P, Powers J . Penetration coefficient, tensile strength, and bond strength of thirteen direct bonding orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod. 1978; 73(5):512-25. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90241-5. View

Pickard M, Dechow P, Rossouw P, Buschang P . Effects of miniscrew orientation on implant stability and resistance to failure. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(1):91-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.12.034. View

10.

Chen C, Hsu M, Chang K, Kuang S, Chen P, Gung Y . Failure analysis: enamel fracture after debonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(6):1071-7. DOI: 10.2319/091907-449.1. View

11.

Singh S, Mogra S, Shetty V, Shetty S, Philip P . Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength, stability, and stress distribution in orthodontic anchorage: a conical, self-drilling miniscrew implant system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141(3):327-336. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.07.022. View

12.

Kojima Y, Fukui H . Numerical simulation of canine retraction by sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127(5):542-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.007. View

13.

Xu H, Smith D, Jahanmir S, Romberg E, Kelly J, Thompson V . Indentation damage and mechanical properties of human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res. 1998; 77(3):472-80. DOI: 10.1177/00220345980770030601. View

14.

Chang Y, Shin S, Baek S . Three-dimensional finite element analysis in distal en masse movement of the maxillary dentition with the multiloop edgewise archwire. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26(3):339-45. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/26.3.339. View

15.

Stratmann U, Schaarschmidt K, WEGENER H, Ehmer U . The extent of enamel surface fractures. A quantitative comparison of thermally debonded ceramic and mechanically debonded metal brackets by energy dispersive micro- and image-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 1996; 18(6):655-62. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/18.6.655. View

16.

BUONOCORE M, Matsui A, GWINNETT A . Penetration of resin dental materials into enamel surfaces with reference to bonding. Arch Oral Biol. 1968; 13(1):61-70. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9969(68)90037-x. View

17.

Ichihara K, Taguchi T, Shimada Y, Sakuramoto I, Kawano S, Kawai S . Gray matter of the bovine cervical spinal cord is mechanically more rigid and fragile than the white matter. J Neurotrauma. 2001; 18(3):361-7. DOI: 10.1089/08977150151071053. View

18.

Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, Van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B . Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 34(1):25-32. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq128. View

19.

Suzuki A, Masuda T, Takahashi I, Deguchi T, Suzuki O, Takano-Yamamoto T . Changes in stress distribution of orthodontic miniscrews and surrounding bone evaluated by 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140(6):e273-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.025. View

20.

Scougall Vilchis R, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, Yamamoto K . Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different self-etching adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136(3):425-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.024. View