| Title |
What is the best method for debonding metallic brackets from the patient’s perspective?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Progress in Orthodontics, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40510-015-0088-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matheus Melo Pithon, Daniel Santos Fonseca Figueiredo, Dauro Douglas Oliveira, Raildo da Silva Coqueiro |
| Abstract |
The aim of this clinical investigation was to compare the level of discomfort reported by patients during the removal of orthodontic metallic brackets performed with four different debonding instruments. The sample examined in this split-mouth study comprised a total of 70 patients (840 teeth). Four different methods of bracket removal were used: lift-off debonding instrument (LODI), straight cutter plier (SC), how plier (HP), and bracket removal plier (BRP). Prior to debonding with all experimental methods, the archwire was removed. Before appliance removal, each patient was instructed about the study objectives. It was explained that at the end of debonding in each quadrant, it would be necessary to assess the discomfort of the procedure using a visual analog scale (VAS). This scale was composed of a millimeter ruler scoring from 0 to 10, in which 0 = a lot of pain, 5 = moderate pain, and 10 = painless. The level of significance was predetermined at 5 % (p = 0.05), and the data were analyzed using the BioEstat 5.0 software (BioEstat, Belém, Brazil). The pain scores with SC were significantly higher than in all other methods. There were no significant differences between HP and BRP pain scores, and the LODI group showed the lowest pain scores. Statistically, significant differences were observed in the ARI between the four debonding methods. The biggest limitation of this study is that each tooth was not assessed individually. Patients reported lower levels of pain and discomfort when metallic brackets were removed with the LODI. The use of a straight cutter plier caused the highest pain and discomfort scores during debonding. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#111
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,189
of 277,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.