The presence of bismuth oxide in calcium silicate cements was not shown to be a reliable predictor for tooth discoloration. Antibiotic pastes without tetracycline derivatives do not guarantee the color stability of teeth.

Objectives: To compare a fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) with a conventional light source (CLS) for removing composite during debonding of brackets with respect to time needed, composite remnants, and tooth substance loss. Materials and Methods: Twelve maxillary models with 10 bovine teeth each were digitally surface-scanned and metal brackets were bonded on each tooth with Opal Seal and Opal Bond. Two operators: an experienced orthodontist (A) and an undergraduate student (B) received six models each and were asked to remove the composite remnants with a tungsten carbide bur and Sof-Lex discs by both a conventional light source (CLS group, n = 3), and fluorescent inducing light (FIT group, n = 3). The time taken was recorded, and a postoperative scan was digitally superimposed on the preoperative scan to quantify number of teeth with composite remnants and volume and thickness of enamel loss and composite remnants. Chi-square test and independent t-tests were performed to compare methods with a significance level of 5%. Results: Compared to CLS, both operators needed significantly less time when using the FIT method and degree of enamel loss, height, and volume of composite remnants and total remaining composite remnants were significantly reduced. By FIT, the volume of enamel loss was significantly reduced for operator A only. Operator B removed the same enamel volume with either method. Conclusions: Cleanup after orthodontic debonding with the FIT was superior regarding time needed and removal of composite remnants. Total enamel loss reduction was operator-dependent.

Compared with the CT, FIT led to significantly fewer and smaller enamel defects (mean volume: -0.04 mm vs -0.33 mm ) (P < 0.001), significantly less composite remained (mean volume: 0.02 mm vs 0.28 mm ) (P < 0.001), and the removal procedure with FIT was significantly quicker (mean: 162 seconds vs 268 seconds) (P < 0.001), CONCLUSIONS: FIT facilitated the removal of composite used to bond trauma splints leading to less time-consuming as well as less invasive treatment. It left fewer composite residues on enamel surfaces.

SUMMARY Aim: The aim of this study was to quantitatively compare conventional composite removal and composite removal supported by the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) regarding the completeness, selectivity, and duration of the procedure in directly restored permanent posterior teeth. Methods and Materials: Two operators removed standardized direct class II composite restorations (n=32 per operator) in human tooth models under simulated clinical conditions. According to a randomized allocation scheme, removal was performed with either the conventional technique (contra-angle handpiece) or supported by FIT. The duration of each removal procedure was recorded. The completeness and selectivity were volumetrically assessed through superimposition of three-dimensional surface scans. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multiple comparison was performed with Tukey tests for each variable. Results: Compared with the conventional technique, composite removal with FIT was faster (329 seconds [95% confidence interval (CI): 268-390 seconds] vs 179 seconds [95% CI: 150-208 seconds]), generated less tooth substance loss (4.53 mm3 [95% CI: 3.77-5.30 mm3] vs 2.77 mm3 [95% CI: 2.11-3.43 mm3]), and left behind less composite residue (1.58 mm3 [95% CI: 1.23-1.94 mm3] vs 0.53 mm3 [95% CI: 0.39-0.67 mm3]). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, FIT facilitated the selective and expeditious removal of tooth-colored composites in directly restored posterior teeth.

Objectives The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the conventional illumination method (CONV) and the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) for distinguishing between composite restorations and intact teeth using different fluorescence-inducing devices commonly used for FIT. Materials and methods Six groups of six dentists equipped with one of six different FIT systems each independently attempted to identify composite restorations and intact teeth on a full-mouth model with 22 composite restorations using CONV and, 1 h later, FIT. The entire procedure was repeated 1 week later. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, including 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated for CONV and FIT overall and for each device. The influence of examiner age, method, and device on each parameter was assessed by multivariate analysis of variance. Results The sensitivity (84%, CI 81–86%), specificity (94%, CI 93–96%), PPV (92%, CI 90–94%), and NPV (90%, CI 88–91%) of FIT was significantly higher than that of CONV (47%, CI 44–50%; 82%, CI 79–84%; 66%, CI 62–69%, and 69%, CI 68–71%, respectively; p<0.001). The differences between CONV and FIT were significant for all parameters and FIT systems except VistaCam, which achieved no significant difference in specificity. Examiners younger than 40 years attained significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive values than older examiners. Conclusions FIT is more reliable for detecting composite restorations than the conventional illumination method. Clinical relevance FIT can be considered an additional or alternative tool for improving the detection of composite restorations.