» Articles » PMID: 35599253

Fluorescence-aided Removal of Orthodontic Composites: an in Vivo Comparative Study

Overview
Journal Prog Orthod
Publisher Springer
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2022 May 22
PMID 35599253
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: To compare the fluorescent properties of 6 different orthodontic adhesives and provide useful information for clinicians in the adhesion choice, in order to remove it easily at the end of orthodontic treatment by using the Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT).

Methods: Six orthodontic adhesives were included: Ortho Connect, Gradia LoFlo A3.5, Greengloo, Transbond XT, KommonBase Pink, and KommonBase Clear. The same thermoformed template with 1 mm shell thickness on the six anterior teeth was used for adhesive positioning; furthermore, an ultraviolet light-emitting diode flashlight was used for the FIT. The brightness of adhesive area and tooth area (L* color coordinate) were measured on the photographs by using the "color picker" tool of Photoshop software.

Results: GC Ortho Connect, Gradia Direct LoFlo and KommonBase Clear showed the highest differences of brightness (15.5, 16.3 and 13.5, respectively), while Greengloo, Transbond XT and KommonBase Pink registered similar values between resin area and tooth area with FIT (- 0.5, - 0.8 and - 1.0, respectively). The high viscosity adhesive resins, as Greengloo and Transbond XT, showed a similar performance in terms of fluorescence to the KommonBase Pink, the lowest viscous resin adhesive considered.

Conclusions: The most used orthodontic adhesives showed different fluorescence properties. Some resins were brighter with the FIT, facilitating identification and subsequent removal. Other orthodontic adhesives presented no difference between adhesive and tooth. The viscosity of orthodontic adhesives did not influence the brightness emitted with FIT.

Citing Articles

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

Chung G, Makowka S, Warunek S, Al-Jewair T Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(12).

PMID: 38930329 PMC: 11205331. DOI: 10.3390/ma17122961.


In vitro evaluation of an easy-to-remove orthodontic adhesive with photochromic property.

Yan J, Cao L, Luo T, Hua F, He H Angle Orthod. 2023; 94(2):200-206.

PMID: 38052230 PMC: 10893928. DOI: 10.2319/060223-392.1.

References
1.
Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, Van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B . Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 34(1):25-32. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq128. View

2.
Giugliano D, dApuzzo F, Majorana A, Campus G, Nucci F, Flores-Mir C . Influence of occlusal characteristics, food intake and oral hygiene habits on dental caries in adolescents: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018; 19(2):95-100. DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2018.19.02.02. View

3.
Luchian I, Moscalu M, Goriuc A, Nucci L, Tatarciuc M, Martu I . Using Salivary MMP-9 to Successfully Quantify Periodontal Inflammation during Orthodontic Treatment. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(3). PMC: 7863927. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10030379. View

4.
Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Grocholewicz K . Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel - current knowledge and future perspectives - a systematic review. Med Sci Monit. 2014; 20:1991-2001. PMC: 4211420. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.890912. View

5.
Meller C, Klein C . Fluorescence properties of commercial composite resin restorative materials in dentistry. Dent Mater J. 2012; 31(6):916-23. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2012-079. View