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

Grünheid, Thorsten; Larson, Brent E.

doi:10.2319/030918-195.1

Cited by 21 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2)Operator-Related Variables -bonding protocol and bonding materials. Once bonding failure occurs, the attachment will detach from the tooth in a short time [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Factors of Composite Attachment Loss During Orthodontic Clear Aligner Therapy

Chen¹,

Mohamed²,

Wang³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The composite attachment loss during orthodontic clear aligner therapy is an adverse event that commonly happens in our daily practice. However, there is a lack of related statistical analysis, and studies analyzing the related risk factors. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the incidence of attachment loss during orthodontic clear aligner therapy and to identify rick factors that may predict such event.Methods The demographics and clinical variables of 94 patients undergoing clear aligner therapy (27 males and 67 females; average age: 27.60± 0.86 years) were recorded. Both patient-related and tooth-related attachment loss was recorded. The chi-square test and logistic regressive analysis were applied to identify the potential risk factors. SPSS for Mac (version 23.0, IBM, USA) was used for statistical analyses. P＜0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Our study suggested that the risk factors for attachment loss include: frequent aligner removal (>= 5 times a day) (losing rate=60.0%, P=0.005); aligner wear time less than 18 hours a day (losing rate=50.8%, P=0.014); eating without aligners inserted (losing rate=47.9%, P=0.034); utilizing aligner tray seaters (losing rate=48.2%, P=0.006) and unilateral mastication (losing rate=52.1%, P=0.002). The multivariable logistic regression analysis indicates that aligner wear time less than 18 hours a day (P=0.020, B=0.925), using aligner tray seaters (P=0.007, B=1.168) and unilateral mastication (P=0.034, B=-0.458) were considered independent factors that can predict the composite attachment loss in orthodontic clear aligner therapy.Conclusion Wearing aligner less than 18 hours a day, using aligner tray seaters and unilateral mastication may contribute to increased incidence of composite attachment loss during orthodontic clear aligner therapy.

show abstract

“…2)Operator-Related Variables -bonding protocol and bonding materials. Once bonding failure occurs, the attachment will detach from the tooth in a short time [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Factors of Composite Attachment Loss During Orthodontic Clear Aligner Therapy

Chen¹,

Mohamed²,

Wang³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to shorter chair time, adequate bond strength and shorter clean-up time, the possibility of better oral hygiene owing to the protective effects of the adhesive and the decrease in retentive sites for plaque accumulation, are favorable aspects of flash-free brackets. [2][3][4] In a first clinical and microscopic study, Foersch et al 2 reported that smooth marginal surfaces of the adhesive in flash-free brackets might provide a protective effect against demineralization around the bracket sides. On the other hand, Jung et al 5 emphasized that the movement of flash-free brackets on the tooth's surface might increase plaque accumu-lation caused by a gap in the direction of slip during the bracket positioning process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of adhesive flash-free brackets on enamel demineralization and periodontal status

Tan¹,

Çokakoğlu²

2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…[2][3][4] A recent clinical study concluded that flash-free brackets shortened the debonding time by allowing the adhesive remnant material on the enamel surface to be cleaned more easily at the end of the treatment. 5 However, a limited number of studies on this topic have been carried out. [5][6][7] Another issue of concern to orthodontic patients is the amount of pain experienced during the debonding procedure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 However, a limited number of studies on this topic have been carried out. [5][6][7] Another issue of concern to orthodontic patients is the amount of pain experienced during the debonding procedure. Many previous studies evaluated pain during debonding, but they were frequently focused on a specific technique or method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only a few studies evaluated the process of adhesive removal with flash-free brackets. 5,6 Grünheid and Larson 5 reported a shorter debonding duration for flash-free brackets due to the lower material density of flash-free adhesive, despite there being more remnant adhesive on the tooth surface. However, the debonding time was evaluated on maxillary teeth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of adhesive flash-free brackets on debonding pain and time: A randomized split-mouth clinical trial

Çokakoğlu¹,

Tan²

2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

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

Cited by 21 publications

References 17 publications

Risk Factors of Composite Attachment Loss During Orthodontic Clear Aligner Therapy

Risk Factors of Composite Attachment Loss During Orthodontic Clear Aligner Therapy

Effects of adhesive flash-free brackets on enamel demineralization and periodontal status

Effects of adhesive flash-free brackets on debonding pain and time: A randomized split-mouth clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About