Objectives: The aim of this in vivo study was to investigate the preventive effect of two different adhesives on enamel demineralization and compare these adhesives with a conventional one. Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients requiring the extraction of their first four premolars for orthodontic treatment were included in the study. One premolar was randomly selected, and an antibacterial monomer-containing and fluoride-releasing adhesive (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray Medical, Okayama, Japan) was used for orthodontic bracket bonding. Another premolar was randomly selected, and a fluoride-releasing and recharging orthodontic adhesive (Opal Seal, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, Utah) was used. One premolar was assigned as a control, and a conventional adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) was used. The teeth were extracted after 8 weeks, and the demineralization areas of the 45 extracted teeth were analyzed using microcomputed tomography with software.

Background The aim of the study is to assess the clinical effect of an antibacterial monomer-containing primer on preventing white spot lesions (WSLs) during fixed orthodontic treatment. Subject and methods The study included 35 patients. A split-mouth design was used during bonding of the brackets. In Clearfil (CF) group, adhesive-coated brackets (APC Plus Victory series, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) were bonded with an antibacterial monomer-containing primer (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray Medical, Okayama, Japan). In Transbond (TB) group, the same adhesive-coated brackets were bonded using a conventional primer (Transbond XT Primer; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). The mean duration of orthodontic treatment was 16 months. Digital images of each tooth were used to assess the WSLs. The areas of the WSLs were measured with a software. The bond failures during orthodontic treatment were also recorded. Results After fixed orthodontic treatment, 23 of the 35 patients showed one or more WSLs. Of the total of 666 teeth, 114 WSLs occurred over the orthodontic treatment time. Rates of WSL in the CF and TB groups were 8.03% and 9.24%, respectively. The difference in WSL rates between the two groups was not statistically significant. No significant difference was observed in the lesion areas between the groups. Moreover, the difference in bracket failure rates between the two groups was also not statistically significant. Conclusion The results of this long-term clinical study indicated no significant difference between the antibacterial monomer-containing primer group and the control group in the efficacy of reducing demineralization throughout the orthodontic treatment.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the reliability of the adhesive remnant index (ARI) score system with different assessment methods and to test the compatibility of the estimators. Materials and Methods: Sixty-eight human premolars were used in this study. The premolar brackets (SmartClip, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) were bonded with a light cure adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek). Brackets were debonded using a Lloyd LRX testing machine (Lloyd Instruments Plc., Fareham, Hampshire, UK). Special image analysis software with 320 magnification and naked-eye assessment methods were used to evaluate the adhesive remnant. Four different investigators scored the same samples according to a 4-point scale. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient was used to test the reliability of the estimator's scores. The Friedman test, followed by the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, was used to investigate significant differences in the ARI scores between the different assessment methods Results: The Kendall rank correlation coefficients revealed no significant difference between the scores assigned by the investigators in this study. However, the ARI scores were significantly different when the special image analysis program was used (p , 0.05). Conclusion: The reliability of the ARI scores increased when quantitative measurement methods were used.

Purpose This in vitro study was conducted to compare the discoloration of a flowable self-adhesive composite, a highly filled composite adhesive, and a liquid polish applied highly filled composite adhesive for bonded lingual retainers. Methods Thirty composite discs were fabricated and divided into three groups: group 1, flowable self-adhesive (GC Ortho Connect™ Flow [GCO], GC Orthodontics, Tokyo, Japan); group 2, highly filled composite adhesive (Transbond™ LR [TLR], 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA); and group 3, highly filled composite adhesive with liquid polish (TLR and BisCover LV™ [TLRB], BISCO Inc, Schaumburg, IL, USA). L*a*b* values were measured by spectrophotometer prior to (T0) and following (T1) immersion in coffee. T1 − T0 differences were calculated as ∆L*, ∆a*, ∆b*, and ∆E*ab values. The Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to determine whether the data were normally distributed. The values that did not fit the normal distribution were evaluated with the Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Dunn’s test was used for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was p < 0.05. Results The difference between the TLR and TLRB groups was statistically significant for ∆E*ab (P = 0.007). ∆E*ab value of TLR group was greater than ∆E*ab value of TLRB group. The differences between the GCO and TLR groups (p = 0.001) and the TLR and TLRB groups (p = 0.010) were statistically significant for ∆a*. ∆a* values of GCO and TLRB groups were greater than ∆a* value of TLR group. The difference between the TLR and TLRB groups was statistically significant (p = 0.003) for ∆b*. ∆b* value of TLR group was greater than ∆b* value of TLRB group. Conclusions Using a Transbond LR polished with BisCover LV or only GC Ortho Connect Flow for lingual retainer bonding reduces coffee-induced discoloration.

No abstract