Comparative Evaluation of Post-debond Enamel Loss of Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Antibacterial Monomer-containing...

The study compares enamel loss following debonding of ceramic brackets using two different adhesive systems, namely: (1) methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB) adhesive system (Clearfil Protect SE) and (2) conventional adhesive system (3M Unitec), using atomic force microscopy (AFM).

The study's sample size consists of 56 premolars. Group I with 28 premolar brackets bonded using the conventional adhesive system, and group II with 28 premolar brackets bonded using Clearfil Protect SE. After debonding and cleanup procedures, surface roughness was evaluated using AFM. The paired sample t-test and the independent sample t-test were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of average roughness (Ra), root mean square roughness (Rs), and maximum peak-to-valley height (Rz) prior to and following bonding. The statistical analysis was carried out using the SPSS Version 16.

The Ra value of the enamel surface after debonding in group I was 141 ± 24.4, while in group II it was 115.7 ± 5.05. The Rs value after debonding in group I was 183.9 ± 24.0, compared to 149.4 ± 5.06 in group II. The Rz in group I was 1662.1 ± 48.1, while in group II it was 1337.1 ± 10.13. Both groups showed increased surface roughness after debonding, but group II exhibited significantly lower roughness values than group I.

The Rs bromide adhesive system resulted in significantly less enamel surface roughness after debonding compared to conventional adhesive systems. Clearfil Protect SE can be considered a superior bonding agent for minimizing enamel loss post-debonding. How to cite this article: Saikia T, Baskaranarayana B, Anbarasu P, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Post-debond Enamel Loss of Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Antibacterial Monomer-containing Adhesive Bonding System and Conventional Adhesive Bonding Systems: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(10):965-969.