Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding

Journal of Dentistry for Children

Volumn 65, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 313-317

  Osorio, Raquel ^a,c   Toledano, Manuel ^a   García Godoy, Franklin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^c NONE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADHESIVE AGENT; ALUMINUM OXIDE; RESIN; TUNGSTEN CARBIDE; TUNGSTEN DERIVATIVE; WATER;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; DENTAL DEBONDING; DENTAL EQUIPMENT; ENAMEL; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MECHANICAL STRESS; METHODOLOGY; OINTMENT; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; PREMOLAR TOOTH; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; SURFACE PROPERTY; ULTRASTRUCTURE;

ADHESIVES; ALUMINUM OXIDE; BICUSPID; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL DEBONDING; DENTAL ENAMEL; DENTAL HIGH-SPEED EQUIPMENT; HUMANS; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON, SCANNING; OINTMENTS; ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS; STRESS, MECHANICAL; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TUNGSTEN COMPOUNDS; WATER;

EID: 0032160619     PISSN: 15518949     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Zachrisson, B.U. and Årthun, L.: Enamel surface appearance after carious debonding techniques. Am J Orthod, 75:121-137, February 1979.
2. Campbell, P.M.: Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod, 65:103-110, March 1995.
3. Relief, D.H. and Denys, ER.: Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding of orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod, 49:1-10, January 1979.
4. Howell, S. and Weekes, W.T.: An electron microscope evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Austr Dent J, 35:245-252, June 1990.
5. Årthun, L. and Bergland, S.: Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod, 5:333-340, April 1985.
6. Gwinnett, A.J. and Gorelick, L.: Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: Clinical application. Am J Orthod, 71:651-655, June 1977.
7. Rouleau, B.D.; Marshall, G.W.; Cooley, R.O.: Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod, 81:423-426, May 1982.
8. Barkmeier, W.W.; Gwinnett, A.J.; Shaffer, S.E.: Effects of enamel etching time on bond strength and morphology. J Clin Orthod, 19:36-38, January 1985.
9. Kinch, A.P.; Taylor, H.; Warltier, R. et al: A clinical study of amount of adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding, comparing etch times of 15 and 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 95:415-421, May 1989.
10. Martin, S. and García-Godoy, F.: Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 106:615-620, December 1994.
11. Garcia-Godoy, F. and Martin, S.: Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to etched or unetched enamel. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 19:181-183, Spring 1995.
12. Oliver, R.G.: The effect of different methods of bracket removal on the amount of residual adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 93:196-200, March 1988.
13. Bennett, C.G.; Shen, C; Waldron, J.M.: The effects of debonding on the enamel surface. J Clin Orthod, 18:330-334, May 1984.