Dataset Information

Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique (FIT) Improves Tooth Surface Clean-Up after Debonding of Buccal and Lingual Orthodontic Appliances.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of fluorescence inducing light to aid the clean-up of tooth surfaces after bracket removal when using buccal or lingual orthodontic appliances. Two full sets of dental arches using extracted human teeth were assembled, with 14 teeth per arch. All teeth were bonded on their buccal and lingual surfaces. After debonding, a single blinded operator performed the tooth surface clean-up, as commonly performed in clinical practice; without the use of fluorescent light (non-FIT) and with two methods using fluorescent light to identify composite remnants on the tooth surfaces (FIT; OPAL and BRACE). Tooth surfaces were scanned before bonding and after clean-up, and the two scans were superimposed using the best-fit method. The results showed that the debonding method, type of tooth and type of tooth surface had a significant effect on the presence of composite remnants, enamel defects, and on debonding time. Contrary to the non-FIT method, there were no composite remnants after clean-up with the use of fluorescence inducing light. Clean-up time was significantly reduced on the buccal surfaces when using the FIT methods. On the lingual surfaces, the FIT methods resulted in larger enamel defects.

SUBMITTER: Engeler O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8746233 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique (FIT) Improves Tooth Surface Clean-Up after Debonding of Buccal and Lingual Orthodontic Appliances.

Engeler Olivia O Stadler Oliver O Horn Simone S Dettwiler Christian C Connert Thomas T Verna Carlalberta C Kanavakis Georgios G

Journal of clinical medicine 20211231 1

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of fluorescence inducing light to aid the clean-up of tooth surfaces after bracket removal when using buccal or lingual orthodontic appliances. Two full sets of dental arches using extracted human teeth were assembled, with 14 teeth per arch. All teeth were bonded on their buccal and lingual surfaces. After debonding, a single blinded operator performed the tooth surface clean-up, as commonly performed in clinical practice; without the use of fluores ...[more]

PMID: 35011955

Similar Datasets

Project description:The secretions of certain cytokines, chemokines and growth factors are triggered by orthodontic appliances, which often affect the remodelling of periodontal tissues. Critical cumulative forces are applied by various types of orthodontic appliances to the periodontium. The secretion of such molecules is probably responsible, through molecular and cellular communications, for the optimal resorption of hard tissues in the periodontal setting, which therefore enables the coordination of multiple movements of tooth. This study assessed and compared a wide range of cytokines, cellular marker analysis and defensins present in the saliva samples of human subjected to orthodontic treatment with two different treatment modalities, i.e., conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances. A total 40 samples of saliva were obtained, of which 20 were treated with traditional lingual appliances and 20 were treated with labial fixed appliances. After 21 days of treatment, all salivary samples were collected from the subjects. In order to analyse a broad range of soluble cytokine levels in saliva by flow cytometry, a bead-based immunoassay was performed. Cell surface markers were analysed by flow cytometry. Protein levels of saliva for defensins were quantified by ELISA. Non-significant differences were observed in the cytokine levels in the saliva except for the significant effects for CCL2, IL-17A and IL-6. Cellular markers CD45 and CD326 showed high percentage in conventional lingual samples. Defensin levels were found to be lower in conventional lingual patients. Subjects with conventional lingual appliances had significantly higher salivary protein levels of IL-1β, CCL2, IL17A, and IL-6, higher CD45+ and CD326+ cells and lower defensin levels than subjects with fixed labial appliances. The current study provided a clear basis for the development of innovative methods to aid in the improvement of various procedural treatments and orthodontic equipment of next generation.

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.

Dataset Information

Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique (FIT) Improves Tooth Surface Clean-Up after Debonding of Buccal and Lingual Orthodontic Appliances.

Publications

Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique (FIT) Improves Tooth Surface Clean-Up after Debonding of Buccal and Lingual Orthodontic Appliances.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets