Thorsten Grünheid1, Geoffrey N Sudit2, Brent E Larson3. 1. *Division of Orthodontics, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, MN, and tgruenhe@umn.edu. 2. **Private Practice, Austin, TX, USA. 3. *Division of Orthodontics, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, MN, and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: A new flash-free adhesive promises to eliminate the need to clean up excess adhesive upon orthodontic bracket bonding. This study evaluated this new adhesive with regard to microleakage at the enamel-bracket interface, amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth after bracket debonding, time required for adhesive remnant cleanup, and clinical practitioners' preference in comparison to a conventional adhesive. MATERIALS/ METHODS: A total of 184 bovine incisors were bonded with ceramic brackets using either the flash-free adhesive (APC Flash-Free Adhesive Coated Appliance System, 3M Unitek [3M], Monrovia, California, USA) or a conventional adhesive (APCII Adhesive Coated Appliance System, 3M). Twenty-four of the teeth were scanned using microcomputed tomography to quantify microleakage into the adhesive layer. Twenty orthodontists debonded the brackets, removed the remaining adhesive, and then completed a survey regarding their preference for one of the two adhesives. The adhesive remnant was quantified and the time required for its removal recorded. Differences between the adhesives were tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: For both adhesives, the microleakage was minimal with no significant differences between the two adhesives. The adhesive remnant was significantly larger for the flash-free adhesive, whereas there was no significant difference in adhesive cleanup time. Fourteen out of the 20 orthodontists preferred the flash-free adhesive over the conventional adhesive. LIMITATIONS: In vitro testing cannot replicate the actual clinical situation during in vivo debonding. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to bond quality and adhesive remnant cleanup, the new flash-free adhesive performs just as well as the conventional adhesive, and, of the two products, is the one preferred by most orthodontists.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: A new flash-free adhesive promises to eliminate the need to clean up excess adhesive upon orthodontic bracket bonding. This study evaluated this new adhesive with regard to microleakage at the enamel-bracket interface, amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth after bracket debonding, time required for adhesive remnant cleanup, and clinical practitioners' preference in comparison to a conventional adhesive. MATERIALS/ METHODS: A total of 184 bovine incisors were bonded with ceramic brackets using either the flash-free adhesive (APC Flash-Free Adhesive Coated Appliance System, 3M Unitek [3M], Monrovia, California, USA) or a conventional adhesive (APCII Adhesive Coated Appliance System, 3M). Twenty-four of the teeth were scanned using microcomputed tomography to quantify microleakage into the adhesive layer. Twenty orthodontists debonded the brackets, removed the remaining adhesive, and then completed a survey regarding their preference for one of the two adhesives. The adhesive remnant was quantified and the time required for its removal recorded. Differences between the adhesives were tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: For both adhesives, the microleakage was minimal with no significant differences between the two adhesives. The adhesive remnant was significantly larger for the flash-free adhesive, whereas there was no significant difference in adhesive cleanup time. Fourteen out of the 20 orthodontists preferred the flash-free adhesive over the conventional adhesive. LIMITATIONS: In vitro testing cannot replicate the actual clinical situation during in vivo debonding. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to bond quality and adhesive remnant cleanup, the new flash-free adhesive performs just as well as the conventional adhesive, and, of the two products, is the one preferred by most orthodontists.
Authors: Michael Schauseil; Sonja Blöcher; Andreas Hellak; Matthias J Roggendorf; Steffen Stein; Heike Korbmacher-Steiner Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 2.151
Authors: Carlos González-Serrano; Eugenia Baena; María-Victoria Fuentes; Alberto Albaladejo; Manuel Míguez-Contreras; Manuel O Lagravère; Laura Ceballos Journal: J Clin Exp Dent Date: 2019-02-01