Browsing by Subject "Bracket"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Debonding and adhesive remnant cleanup: an in vitro comparison of bond quality, adhesive remnant cleanup, and orthodontic acceptance of a flash-free product
    (2014-06) Sudit, Geoffrey Nathan
    Background: New orthodontic products are continuously introduced to clinicians seeking more practical and efficient solutions for their practice. One such product is a new flash-free adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding, which has been introduced to the market recently. This new adhesive needs to be clinically appraised with regard to its efficacy and efficiency, and compared with conventional orthodontic adhesives that are currently in use.Aims: To compare the quality of the bond at the enamel-bracket interface using micro-computed tomography (microCT), the amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth surface after bracket debonding, the time required for adhesive remnant cleanup, and clinical practitioners' preference between the new flash-free and a conventional adhesive. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 bovine incisors were bonded with ceramic orthodontic brackets using the flash-free adhesive (APC Flash-Free Adhesive Coated Appliance System, 3M) on one side and a conventional adhesive (APCII Adhesive Coated Appliance System, 3M) on the other side. Twenty-four teeth were randomly selected and scanned using microCT to analyze microleakage into the adhesive layer. Twenty orthodontists debonded twenty mounted dental arches. The adhesive remnant on the bovine incisors was quantified. The orthodontists then removed the remaining adhesive. The time required for complete removal of adhesive was recorded. Finally, the orthodontists completed a specifically designed survey to evaluate their preference for one of the two adhesives. Results: For both adhesives tested, the microleakage was very minimal with no significant differences between the two adhesives. The amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth after bracket debonding was significantly larger for the flash-free adhesive (P<0.0001). The adhesive cleanup was about 8% faster when using the flash-free adhesive, but the difference was not statistically significant when compared with the conventional adhesive. Fourteen out of 20 orthodontists preferred the flash-free product over the conventional product.Conclusions: With regard to the practicality and efficiency, the new flash-free adhesive performs just as well as the conventional adhesive.