Efficacy of Bracket Adhesive Remnant Removal by a Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique with a UV Light Handpiece: In Vitro Study

Abstract

Objective. This study aims to analyze the fluorescence-aided identification technique efficacy on adhesive remnant removal from the enamel surface after orthodontic bracket debonding. Materials and Methods. Forty-five extracted human upper central incisors were divided into 3 groups (n = 15) according to the kind of adhesive for bracket bonding and the use or absence of near UV light for remnant removal: BF/UV- fluorescent adhesive/UV light, BF/0-fluorescent adhesive/no UV light, and TB/0-nonfluorescent adhesive/no UV light. For all teeth, 100% of the adhesive used remained on the enamel surface after debonding. Fifteen dentists performed adhesive removal on the enamel surface using a carbide bur. The specimens were analyzed by a stereomicroscope, and the adhesive remnant percentage from each specimen was calculated. The time used by each dentist to perform the removal was recorded. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results. Significant differences were observed among groups for adhesive remnant ( p = 0.0008 ) and for time ( p = 0.0001 ). The means of adhesive remnant were BF/UV (5.84), BF/0 (34.37), and TB/0 (37.02). The mean times necessary to remove adhesive were BF/UV (1 min 40 s), BF/0 (3 min 03 s), and TB/0 (2 min 46 s). For the BF/UV group, significantly lower values of adhesive remnants and time for debonding were found ( p < 0.05 ). Conclusion. The fluorescence-aided identification technique significantly reduced the amount of adhesive remnant, and the time necessary to perform this clinical procedure.

The Influence of Indirect Bonding Technique on Adhesion of Orthodontic Brackets and Post-Debonding Enamel Integrity—An In Vitro Study

“…Additionally, the enamel-safe removal of adhesive residuals is of crucial importance, as post-debonding polishing with a tungsten-carbide bur can cause micro-damage in the enamel. Similar findings were reported by Moecke et al [39], who highlighted the consequences of microscopic enamel damage, such as an increased susceptibility to dental plaque accumulation and serious alterations in dental aesthetics.…”

“…Consequently, the ARI score can be applied as a general assessment of the remaining adhesive, while profilometry provides a more precise evaluation. To facilitate our analysis and for the purposes of this paper, the results found in the literature (presented according to the five-grade mARI scale) were converted into the unified zero-three-grade scale and are presented in Table 6 [8,25,26,28,29,35,36,[38][39][40].…”

“…The analysis of the metal bracket base (with the lowest SBS value in the study groups) revealed no presence of Ca. Thus, a lower SBS (but still sufficient for orthodontic treatment) may be recommended in cases of congenital or acquired enamel defects [5,7,8,15,28,37,[39][40][41][42][43].…”

Fluorescence intensity of composite resin for direct veneer removal using a fluorescence‐aided identification technique

“…A high-speed handpiece emitting ultraviolet (UV) light at an intensity of 350-400 nm can be used for this technique. 4,17,18 Nevertheless, for this technique to be effective, the use of fluorescent resins is essential. 13 Currently, composite resins have different fluorescence intensities (high, medium, and low).…”

Optimizing Ultraviolet Illumination for Detecting Fluorescent Orthodontic Adhesive Residues during Debonding Procedures

“…This creates a tedious and time-consuming process for the practitioner to remove all adhesive remnants from teeth. With poor resin recognition, adhesive resin may remain, and iatrogenic enamel damage can also occur [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Thus, accurate identification and removal of adhesive remnants is important to prevent plaque accumulation, caries development, staining, and iatrogenic damage [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].…”