Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding.

Objective: To evaluate impulse debonding compared to three conventional methods for bracket removal in relation to the damage caused to the enamel surface.

Materials And Methods: Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n = 48) for bracket bonding with either a composite adhesive system (CAS) or a glass-ionomeric cement (GIC). These two groups were then each randomly divided into four subgroups (n = 12) according to the method of debonding using (1) bracket removal pliers, (2) a side-cutter, (3) a lift-off debracketing instrument, or (4) an air pressure pulse device.

Suitability of orthodontic brackets for rebonding and reworking following removal by air pressure pulses and conventional debracketing techniques.

Aim: To test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the reusability of debonded brackets with regard to debonding technique and adhesive used.

Method: Ninety-six osteotomed third molars were randomly assigned to two study groups (n = 48) for bonding of a 0.018-inch bracket (Ormesh, Ormco) with either a composite adhesive (Mono-Lok2; RMO) or a glass ionomer cement (GIC; Fuji Ortho LC;GC).