Orthodontic Appliance Complication
Conditions
Keywords
Recycling, Sandblasting, Metal Bracket.
Brief summary
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of different residual orthodontic adhesive removing methods for rebonding debonded metal attachments.
Detailed description
1. To evaluate and compare the bond failure rates of rebonded brackets using two methods to remove the adhesive remnant and comparing them with contralateral teeth. 2. To evaluate and compare the bond failure rates of rebonded brackets between different quadrants and arches. 3. To evaluate and compare the bond failure rates of rebonded molar tubes using two methods to remove the adhesive remnant and comparing them with contralateral teeth. 4. To evaluate and compare the bond failure rates of rebonded molar tubes between different quadrants and arches.
Interventions
PROCEDURERecycling orthodontic brackets
T0: The adhesive removal will be performed by high-speed hand piece with tungsten carbide bur. the bur will be changed every five attachments. T1: Control group of T0. T2: The adhesive removal will be performed by sandblasting via Micro-etcher. T3: Control group of T2.
Sponsors
University of Baghdad
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SCREENING
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Caregiver)
Masking description
The attachments will carry out by main investigator who give each side coded key then the attachments will be rebond by blind specialist. The participants will be blinded to group assignment and interventions (double-blinded trial).
Intervention model description
split-mouth, cross-quadrant
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
12 Years to 25 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Patients need metal fixed orthodontic appliance treatment; 2. Complete set of permanent dentition with fully erupted teeth on both arches; 3. Intact teeth and mainly their buccal surfaces are free from caries, fillings, or gingival hyperplasia; 4. No occlusal interferences that can affect the ideal position of attachments, especially in the lower arch.
Exclusion criteria
1. patients have crown, missing teeth, or craniofacial anomalies. 2. patients have congenital enamel defects specially their buccal surface.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The number of bonding failures will be compared using the chi-square test. | baselines | evaluate and compare the bond failure rates. different quadrants and arches.To evaluate and compare the bond failure rates of rebonded attachments(brackets and molar tubes)using two methods (Tungsten carbide bur and sandblasting)) to remove the adhesive remnant and comparing them with contralateral teeth. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The bonding failure between each quadrant will be compared by one way ANOVA. | bsaelines | evaluate and compare the bond failure rates. different quadrants and arches. |
Countries
Iraq
Outcome results
None listed