Dataset Information

A comparative assessment of bracket survival and adhesive removal time using flash-free or conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare bracket survival and adhesive removal time between a flash-free and a conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding.

Materials and methods

Forty-five consecutive patients had their maxillary incisors, canines, and premolars bonded with ceramic brackets using a flash-free adhesive (APC Flash-Free Adhesive, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) on one side and a conventional adhesive (APCII Adhesive, 3M Unitek) on the other side. The side allocation was randomized. Bracket failure was recorded at 4-week intervals. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored on debond and adhesive removal timed to the nearest second. The primary outcome was adhesive removal time per quadrant. Secondary outcomes were bracket failure rate, time to first-time failure of a bracket, and ARI score on debond. Paired t-tests were used to compare adhesive removal times and ARI scores between the adhesives with P < .05 considered statistically significant.

Results

Bracket failure rates were 4.3% for the flash-free adhesive and 1.9% for the conventional adhesive, with mean times to first-time failure of 31 weeks for the flash-free adhesive and 42 weeks for the conventional adhesive; neither failure rates nor times to first failure were significantly different. Although the flash-free adhesive left significantly more adhesive on the tooth surface after debonding, the adhesive removal times were 22.2% shorter than with the conventional adhesive.

Conclusions

Bracket survival with the flash-free adhesive was equivalent to the conventional adhesive when ceramic brackets were bonded. Adhesive removal was significantly faster when using the flash-free adhesive, which may result in time savings of more than 20% compared with the conventional adhesive.

SUBMITTER: Grunheid T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8120881 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor orthodontic treatment to be effective, bracket placement must be precise to make the finishing stage easier, leading to an ideal occlusion with minimal intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of manual and digital bracket positioning techniques utilizing computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) jigs, 3D-printed indirect bonding trays (IBT), and double-layer vacuum-formed thermoplastic IBT.MethodsThis study was done by scanning the dental arch of 30 orthodontic patients. The virtual setup and bracket positioning were performed with the Insignia™ system for ten patients, and 3D Maestro® software was used for the virtual setup of the remaining 20 patients. At the same time, the bracket positioning of 10 patients was done digitally by the 3D Maestro® software and the remaining 10 patients manually through the Ray Set® device. IBT were fabricated by CAD/CAM system, 3D printer, and vacuum-formed thermoplastic machine. A virtual bracket position was compared to the actual bracket position using the best-fit method of 3D digital superimposition in Geomagic® Control X™ (CX) software to determine how accurate it was in terms of linear and angular accuracy. Statistical analyses using SPSS 26.0 including Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the intra-examiner reproducibility. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to measure normality distribution. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to analyze the differences between bracket positions within each group.ResultsAlthough there were obvious positional discrepancies between several readings, they were still within clinically acceptable ranges.ConclusionsAll types of IBT would translate the planned position of the bracket from the digital and manual techniques to the teeth of patients with accepted precision in both linear and angular measurements; in addition, the error rate is about the same for all types of IBT. This trial is registered with NCT05549089.

Project description:BackgroundTermination of fixed orthodontic treatment is associated with bracket debonding and residual adhesive removal. These procedures increase enamel roughness to a degree that should depend on the tool used. Enamel roughening may be associated with bacterial retention and staining. However, a very limited data exists on the alteration of 3D enamel roughness resulting from the use of different tools for orthodontic clean-up.Aims1. To perform a precise assessment of 3D enamel surface roughness resulting from residual adhesive removal following orthodontic debonding molar tubes. 2. To compare enamel surfaces resulting from the use of tungsten carbide bur, a one-step polisher and finisher and Adhesive Residue Remover.Material and methodsBuccal surfaces of forty-five extracted human third molars were analysed using a confocal laser microscope at the magnification of 1080× and 3D roughness parameters were calculated. After 20 s etching, molar tubes were bonded, the teeth were stored in 0.9% saline solution for 24 hours and debonded. Residual adhesive was removed using in fifteen specimen each: a twelve-fluted tungsten carbide bur, a one-step finisher and polisher and Adhesive Residue Remover. Then, surface roughness analysis was repeated. Data normality was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare between variables of normal distribution and for the latter-Kruskal-Wallis test.ResultsSa (arithmetical mean height) was significantly different between the groups (p = 0, 01326); the smoothest and most repeatable surfaces were achieved using Adhesive Residue Remover. Similarly, Sq (root mean square height of the scale-limited surface) had the lowest and most homogenous values for Adhesive Residue Remover (p = 0, 01108). Sz (maximum height of the scale-limited surface) was statistically different between the groups (p = 0, 0327), however no statistically significant differences were found concerning Ssk (skewness of the scale-limited surface).DiscussionConfocal laser microscopy allowed 3D surface analysis of enamel surface, avoiding the limitations of contact profilometry. Tungsten carbide burs are the most popular adhesive removing tools, however, the results of the present study indicate, that a one step polisher and finisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover are less detrimental to the enamel. This is in agreement with a recent study based on direct 3D scanning enamel surface. It proved, that a one-step finisher and polisher as well as Adhesive Residue Remover are characterized by a similar effectiveness in removing residual remnants as tungsten carbide bur, but they remove significantly less enamel.ConclusionOrthodontic debonding and removal of adhesive remnants increases enamel roughness. The smoothest surfaces were achieved using Adhesive Residue Remover, and the roughest using tungsten carbide bur.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of a demineralized dentin matrix (DDM) in decreasing the initial inflammatory response of the gingiva and facilitating the repair and regeneration of soft tissue in alveolar ridge preservation.MethodsThis clinical study employed a split-mouth design. Fourteen patients with a total of forty-four sites underwent extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures. A Bilaterally symmetrical extraction operation were conducted on the premolars of each patient. The experimental group received DDM as a graft material for ARP, while the control group underwent natural healing. Within the first month postoperatively, the pain condition, color, and swelling status of the extraction sites were initially assessed at different time points Subsequently, measurements were taken for buccal gingival margin height, buccal-lingual width, extraction socket contour, and the extraction socket area and healing rate were digitally measured. Additionally, Alcian Blue staining was used for histological evaluation of the content during alveolar socket healing.ResultsBoth groups experienced uneventful healing, with no adverse reactions observed at any of the extraction sites. The differences in VAS pain scores between the two groups postoperatively were not statistically significant. In the early stage of gingival tissue healing (3 days postoperatively), there were statistically significant differences in gingival condition and buccal gingival margin height between the two groups. In the later stage of gingival tissue healing (7, 14, and 30 days postoperatively), there were statistically significant differences in buccal-lingual width, extraction socket healing area, and healing rate between the two groups. Furthermore, the histological results from Alcian Blue staining suggested that the experimental group may play a significant role in promoting gingival tissue healing, possibly by regulating inflammatory responses when compared to the control group.ConclusionThe application of DDM in alveolar ridge preservation has been found to diminish initial gingival inflammation after tooth extraction. Additionally, it has shown the ability to accelerate early gingival soft tissue healing and preserve its anatomical contour.Clinical trial registrationchictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2100050650.