Objective: To determine the effect of bracket type on halitosis, periodontal status, and microbial colonization. Materials and Methods: Forty-six patients scheduled for fixed orthodontic treatment (age 11-16 years) were selected from the orthodontic department of Suleyman Demirel University. Patients were divided into two groups with random distribution of brackets; 23 patients were treated with self-ligating brackets (group SLBs), the others with conventional brackets (group CBs). Halitosis measurements and periodontal and microbial records were obtained before the placement of brackets (T0), 1 week later (T1), and 5 weeks after bonding (T2). Periodontal parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing index (BOP), were obtained from all the bonded teeth. Halitosis measurements were performed at the same time. Microbial samples were obtained from the buccal surfaces of all the bonded teeth. Data were analyzed by using a repeated-measurement analysis of variance test for the comparison of parameters between groups and times. Results: Periodontal parameters and halitosis results were higher in the CBs group than in the SLBs group (P , .05). In the SLBs group, halitosis and BOP values revealed no pronounced changes between T1 and T2 (P . .05). Intra-and intergroup comparisons showed that there were no statistically significant differences for microbial colonization between all the time intervals (P . .05). Conclusion: Bracket type has an effect on halitosis and periodontal status. Therefore, self-ligating brackets may be advised in order to prevent patients from developing halitosis and to increase the likelihood of good oral hygiene during orthodontic treatment. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:479-485.)

Objectives To evaluate the effects of adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets on enamel demineralization and periodontal status in patients during fixed orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods Thirty patients, age 12 to 18 years, who had Angle Class I or Class II malocclusion with mild to moderate crowding in the permanent dentition were selected for this study. APC flash-free and conventional ceramic brackets were bonded for a split-mouth study design. The quadrant allocation was randomized. Demineralization records were obtained immediately after bonding (T0), 1 month after bonding (T1), and 6 months after bonding (T2). Clinical periodontal measurements, including gingival index, plaque index, and bleeding upon probing, were obtained before bonding (T0) and at the same time points (T1 and T2). Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U and Friedman tests to compare parameters between groups and times. Results Demineralization values decreased on most sides of the brackets for both groups between T0 and T1. In the conventional group, there was significantly higher demineralization on more sides compared with flash-free brackets between T1 and T2. With one exception, the decreased values were found in the incisal/occlusal sides of all brackets at T2. All periodontal parameters showed significant increases after 6 months of treatment in both groups. Intergroup comparison showed no significant differences in demineralization or periodontal measurements at any of the time points. Conclusions The effects of APC flash-free and conventional brackets on enamel demineralization and periodontal health did not differ from each other.

Objectives To evaluate the effects of adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets on the level of pain, amount of remnant adhesive, and removal time during the debonding procedure. Materials and Methods Thirty patients (20 female, 10 male) aged 12 to 18 years undergoing nonextraction fixed orthodontic treatment were included in this study. APC flash-free and conventional ceramic brackets were bonded with a split-mouth study design. Bracket types were randomly allocated to quadrants. During the removal of the brackets, the visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the level of pain for each tooth. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to determine the amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth surface. Adhesive removal times were calculated per quadrant. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon test for comparisons between groups. Results Pain scores were generally higher for the conventional group than for the flash-free group. There were no differences in VAS scores across most tooth types during debonding. Overall, ARI results showed more adhesive remnants in the conventional bracket group (P < .001). Except for the right maxillary quadrant, the times required to remove the adhesive were significantly longer for the flash-free brackets than the conventional brackets (P ≤ .005). Conclusions Although removal time was slightly longer for the flash-free adhesive than for the conventional adhesive, lower pain scores were generally observed for the flash-free adhesive brackets during the debonding procedure. Both time and pain differences could be considered clinically insignificant.

Objectives To evaluate the effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability of mandibular anterior teeth at the 1-year follow-up. Materials and Methods One hundred thirty-two patients were randomly allocated to four groups using different lingual retainers: group 1, 0.016 × 0.022-in dead-soft wire; group 2, 0.0215-in 5-strand stainless steel wire; group 3, 0.014 × 0.014-in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing nitinol retainer (Memotain); group 4, connected bonding pads. Plaque, gingival, and calculus indexes were used to evaluate periodontal health, and Little's irregularity index, intercanine width, and arch length measurements were performed to evaluate stability. All measurements were performed at each time point (debonding and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Results The mean value of the gingival index obtained in group 3 was lower than the mean value for all other groups. The mean value of the calculus index was the lowest in group 3, and there was a significant difference between group 3 and groups 1 and 2. No differences were found among the groups in terms of plaque index, intercanine width, and arch length. The least irregularity was obtained in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences between these groups and groups 1 and 4. Conclusions Gingival inflammation and calculus accumulation were the lowest in group 3 (Memotain). The irregularity for Memotain and stainless steel retainers was less than or the other groups. However, no clinically significant worsening of periodontal health or relapse were seen in any groups after 1 year.

Many types of dental lasers are currently available that can be efficiently used for soft and hard tissue applications in the field of orthodontics. For achieving the desired effects in the target tissue, knowledge of laser characteristics such as power, wavelength and timing, is necessary. Laser therapy is advantageous because it often avoids bleeding, can be pain free, is non-invasive and is relatively quick. The high cost is its primary disadvantage. It is very important to take the necessary precautions to prevent possible tissue damage when using laser dental systems. Here, we reviewed the main types and characteristics of laser systems used in dental practice and discuss the applications of lasers in orthodontics, harmful effects and laser system safety.

According to our findings, laser etching reduced the SBS of brackets bonded to fluorosed teeth, but provided clinically acceptable SBS values.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the demineralization around brackets and shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets bonded to Er:YAG laser-irradiated enamel at different power settings with various adhesive systems combinations. Methods: A total of 108 premolar teeth were used in this study. Teeth were assigned into three groups according to the etching procedure, then each group divided into three subgroups based on the application of different adhesive systems. There were a total of nine groups as follows. Group 1: Acid + Transbond XT Primer; group 2: Er:YAG (100 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Transbond XT Primer; group 3: Er:YAG (200 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Transbond XT Primer; group 4: Transbond Plus self-etching primer (SEP); group 5: Er:YAG (100 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Transbond Plus SEP; group 6: Er:YAG (200 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Transbond Plus SEP; group 7: Clearfil Protect Bond; group 8: Er:YAG (100 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Clearfil Protect Bond; group 9: Er:YAG (200 mJ, 10 Hz) etching + Clearfil Protect Bond. Brackets were bonded with Transbond XT Adhesive Paste in all groups. Teeth to be evaluated for demineralization and SBS were exposed to pH and thermal cyclings, respectively. Then, demineralization samples were scanned with micro-CT to determine lesion depth values. For SBS test, a universal testing machine was used and adhesive remnant was index scored after debonding. Data were analyzed statistically. Results: No significant differences were found among the lesion depth values of the various groups, except for G7 and G8, in which the lowest values were recorded. The lowest SBS values were in G7, whereas the highest were in G9. The differences between the other groups were not significant. Conclusions: Er:YAG laser did not have a positive effect on prevention of enamel demineralization. When two step self-etch adhesive is preferred for bonding brackets, laser etching at 1 W (100 mJ, 10 Hz) is suggested to improve SBS of brackets.

No abstract