Dent Med Probl. 2022 Apr-Jun;59(2):187-193. doi: 10.17219/dmp/146791.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, dentists must avoid the aerosol-generating procedures during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the rate of bracket bond failure with the aerosol-generating and non-aerosol generating bonding techniques.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on a sample of 44 patients (880 teeth), equally divided into 2 groups: the conventional aerosol-generating bonding technique (ABT); and the novel non-aerosol-generating bonding technique (NABT). The rate of bracket survival and total number of bracket breakages in the 2 groups were assessed by means of the survival regression analysis. The influence of pre-treatment factors, such as the sagittal jaw relationship (ANB), the Frankfort-mandibular plane angle (FMA), overjet, overbite, and upper and lower crowding, on the rate of bracket survival was also evaluated.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between ABT and NABT in terms of bracket survival. The mean bracket survival with ABT was 176.21 ±77.89 days and with NABT it was 162.53 ±83.34 days. The novel technique showed a hazard ratio of bracket survival of 2.99 as compared to the conventional method. There was a statistically significant influence of overjet on the rate of bracket survival (p = 0.010). The posterior segment had a higher rate of bracket failure as compared to the anterior segment in NABT, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001). However, this difference was statistically non-significant in the case of ABT.
CONCLUSIONS: There was an increased rate of bracket failure with NABT as compared to ABT. The rate of bracket breakages in the anterior quadrants was comparable for both bonding techniques.
PMID:35775411 | DOI:10.17219/dmp/146791
