OBJECTIVES: To compare a fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) with a conventional light source (CLS) for removing composite during debonding of brackets with respect to time needed, composite remnants, and tooth substance loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve maxillary models with 10 bovine teeth each were digitally surface-scanned and metal brackets were bonded on each tooth with Opal Seal and Opal Bond. Two operators: an experienced orthodontist (A) and an undergraduate student (B) received six models each and were asked to remove the composite remnants with a tungsten carbide bur and Sof-Lex discs by both a conventional light source (CLS group, n = 3), and fluorescent inducing light (FIT group, n = 3). The time taken was recorded, and a postoperative scan was digitally superimposed on the preoperative scan to quantify number of teeth with composite remnants and volume and thickness of enamel loss and composite remnants. Chi-square test and independent t-tests were performed to compare methods with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Compared to CLS, both operators needed significantly less time when using the FIT method and degree of enamel loss, height, and volume of composite remnants and total remaining composite remnants were significantly reduced. By FIT, the volume of enamel loss was significantly reduced for operator A only. Operator B removed the same enamel volume with either method. CONCLUSIONS: Cleanup after orthodontic debonding with the FIT was superior regarding time needed and removal of composite remnants. Total enamel loss reduction was operator-dependent.
OBJECTIVES: To compare a fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) with a conventional light source (CLS) for removing composite during debonding of brackets with respect to time needed, composite remnants, and tooth substance loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve maxillary models with 10 bovine teeth each were digitally surface-scanned and metal brackets were bonded on each tooth with Opal Seal and Opal Bond. Two operators: an experienced orthodontist (A) and an undergraduate student (B) received six models each and were asked to remove the composite remnants with a tungsten carbide bur and Sof-Lex discs by both a conventional light source (CLS group, n = 3), and fluorescent inducing light (FIT group, n = 3). The time taken was recorded, and a postoperative scan was digitally superimposed on the preoperative scan to quantify number of teeth with composite remnants and volume and thickness of enamel loss and composite remnants. Chi-square test and independent t-tests were performed to compare methods with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Compared to CLS, both operators needed significantly less time when using the FIT method and degree of enamel loss, height, and volume of composite remnants and total remaining composite remnants were significantly reduced. By FIT, the volume of enamel loss was significantly reduced for operator A only. Operator B removed the same enamel volume with either method. CONCLUSIONS: Cleanup after orthodontic debonding with the FIT was superior regarding time needed and removal of composite remnants. Total enamel loss reduction was operator-dependent.
Authors: Philipp Kley; Matthias Frentzen; Katharina Küpper; Andreas Braun; Susann Kecsmar; Andreas Jäger; Michael Wolf Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Florence C Auderset; Thomas Connert; Christian Meller; Andreas Filippi; Dorothea C Dagassan-Berndt Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 2.791
Authors: Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho; Martina Triduo; Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero; Clara Guinot Barona; Alberto Albaladejo Martínez Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-04-12 Impact factor: 4.241