ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Laser Er:YAG-Assisted Debonding May Be a Viable Alternative to the Conventional Method for Monocrystalline Ceramic Brackets.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Orthodontic Ceramic Bracket Removal Using Lasers: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Evaluation of dental enamel after debonding of sapphire brackets and removal of orthodontic adhesive remnants.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Performance of two laser motion modes versus conventional orthodontic ceramic brackets debonding technique on enamel surface topography.Lasers in medical science · 2024Article
- Optimized Erbium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Er:YAG) Laser Parameters for the Removal of Dental Ceramic Restorations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Er:YAG laser lithium disilicate crown removal: removal time and pulpal temperature change.Lasers in medical science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In orthodontic practice, due to the increased interest among patients in smile aesthetics, different types of brackets are now being used, with those most frequently applied being ones made of polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the laser Er:YAG-assisted debonding technique compared to conventional methods for removing monocrystalline ceramic brackets from human teeth. The study sample included 60 vital teeth (frontals of the upper jaw) from 10 patients who had monocrystalline ceramic brackets and were in the final phase of orthodontic treatment. The debonding procedure was carried out following a split-mouth study design, using either the conventional technique or laser Er:YAG 2940 nm radiation. For each tooth, three variables were evaluated: the patient's sujective tooth sensitivity associated with the debonding, the time required for debonding, and pulp blood flow microdynamics after the debonding. Three evaluation instruments were used to assess and quantify the treatment effects: (i) the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale for pain assessment; (ii) a digital stopwatch/timer to measure the time required to remove the bracket; and (iii) laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) for recording the pulp blood flow evolution. The statistical analysis of the recorded data showed a statistically significant difference between the two debonding methods regarding the tooth sensitivity during the debonding and the time required for the procedure. The subjective tooth sensitivity was reduced from a mean ± standard deviation of 3.07 ± 1.46 to 0.47 ± 0.86 on the Wong-Baker FACES scale (Wilcoxon signed rank,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.