The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a UV lightbased auxiliary illumination on adhesive remnant (AR) removal after orthodontic debonding. Sixty human molars were divided according to the adhesive used for bonding: O-opaque; LF-low fluorescence; and HFhigh fluorescence. After debonding, the teeth were subdivided according to the AR removal method: No UV light or With UV light. After AR removal, the teeth were polished. Direct visual analysis, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and time quantification for AR removal analyses were performed (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, Fisher's exact, chisquare trend, ANOVA, and independent t-tests; α = 5%). Concerning the adhesives, there was no significant difference among direct visual, SEM and time analyses for AR removal (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding AR removal methods, a similarity among the subgroups was verified for direct visual and SEM analyses (p≥0.05). However, a significant trend was verified for the with UV light method to produce greater marks, and the no UV light method, to produce a greater rate of samples with AR before polishing (p = 0.015). AR removal with light was significantly quicker in comparison with the no UV light method (p < 0.0001). The use of UV light may aid orthodontists in removing AR more thoroughly and in less time. However, they should receive special training to apply this technology, and should never dismiss the final polishing procedure.
Background: Fluorescent agents are added to orthodontic adhesives with the aim of making them visible under ultraviolet (UV) light, which ensures the complete, safe removal of remnants after orthodontic treatment. However, it is necessary to evaluate if the mechanical strength of these materials is maintained. Therefore, this study evaluated whether the addition of fluorescent agents influences the shear bond strength and clinical performance of a UV lightsensitive adhesive system. Methods: This study consisted of two stages: (1) In vitro phase: 40 human teeth were selected, divided at random into 2 groups (n = 20), according to the adhesive system used: UV group-adhesive with fluorescent agent, and control group-conventional adhesive. A shear bond strength test was performed using a DL 2000 universal testing machine, at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The accessories were removed and an evaluation of the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was carried out. (2) Clinical phase: 8 patients were selected and had their appliances bonded using the split-mouth design (160 teeth) with the same tested adhesive systems (UV, n = 80; control, n = 80). The patients were monitored for bonding failure for a period of 24 months. Statistical analysis was performed using the Independent t test, chi-squared tests, and Mann-Whitney test, at a level of significance of 5% and confidence interval of 95%. Results: Regarding the in vitro phase, the shear bond strength test yielded similar results in the two groups (p > 0.05) and the ARI showed statistically significant differences between the groups with a score of 1 being the most frequent ARI for both groups (70%). In addition, there was no clinical difference in terms of bonding failure between the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The addition of fluorescent elements does not alter the mechanical strength and performance of the orthodontic adhesive and represents a viable alternative for clinical application.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.