Evidence Hub

Evaluation of pain perception and enamel loss by two different techniques of debonding: a randomized controlled trial

Lakshmi Niharika Ubbarapu, Gowri Sankar Singaraju, Ganugapanta Vivek Reddy, Perala Johnson, Kiran. K. Kumari, Prasad Mandava

Journal of Oral Research, 2024

50 participants

Abstract

Objective: To assess the level of discomfort experienced by patients during the debonding procedure using two different debonding instruments, as well quantify the iatrogenic enamel loss following debonding.

Materials and Methods: A total of 50 patients who were due for debonding were randomly allocated into two equal groups of 25 each by SNOSE method. The group-A (GDC Bracket Remover # Straight Plier (3000/83)) and group- B (#095-S - Bracket and Adhesive Removing Plier. Orthopli, Philadelphia, Pa) were utilized for debonding by a standard procedure. Patients were given a pain-perception worksheet with a visual analogue scale (VAS) to note the pain/discomfort experienced. The amount of residual enamel attached to the bracket base pad was evaluated by elemental mapping using backscattered scanning electron microscopy technique. Mann Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were utilized for analysing pain perception. The bracket adhesive remnant index (BARI) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were analysed using Chi-Square Test.

Results: The pain perception with ORTHOPLI adhesive and bracket debonding plier (22.5) was less compared to that of GDC plier (30) and statistically significant. BARI scores showed 39% more enamel loss in Group B compared to Group A. ARI scores showed less amount of adhesive attached to tooth surface in Group B (58%) compared to group A. Whereas, the percentage of enamel attached to the bracket base of both the groups showed no significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 50 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free