Fluorescence-aided composite removal during lingual bracket debonding

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

BACKGROUND

Fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) studies for orthodontic resins are relatively new, using an arbitrary selection of resins, lights, and work parameters. In order to provide FIT guidelines for optimal visualization, the objectives of this study were to describe the electromagnetic characteristics of fluorescent orthodontic resins, determine appropriate light specification, and describe light and work parameter effects on resin fluorescence.

METHODS

This in vitro study assessed five fluorescent orthodontic resins and a non-fluorescent control resin using spectrophotometry, a scaled image analysis of 25 μm thick resins to compare intensities, and a visual assessment. Light sources varied by flashlight lens (narrow [N], average [X], and magnified [Z]) and UV intensity (X and X High). Work parameters included distance (20-300 mm) and angulation (15-70°). Visual scores were assigned to determine discernibility.

RESULTS

The average excitation maxima was 384 nm. Fluorescence increased with more direct UV light exposure. The highest intensity was recorded with Light X High at 50 mm and 70°. Visual assessment followed image analysis trends, and fluorescence was clinically discernable for all 25 μm thick samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Excitation wavelength range of 395-405 nm is appropriate for FIT illumination. All resins were anisotropic and showed greater fluorescence with greater angle, higher UV intensity, and closer proximity.

Is a non-radiological-assisted method valid for establishing crown-root relationships in an orthodontic set-up incorporating the roots? A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to obtain information on the relationship between crown and root in terms of morphology - dimensions and crown-root angles -to be used for orthodontic set-ups without the use of radiological examinations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All the good quality CBCTs of patients obeying the eligibility criteria, from 2000 to 2015, were analysed. All teeth were analysed except for third molars. Six variables were evaluated: crown (CL) and root length (RL), crown width (CW), root width (RW), crown-root angles in both the frontal (CR-frontal) and sagittal plane (CR-sagittal). All teeth were divided into 3 groups according to number of root (single, two, three-rooted). The measurements were assessed with the Invivo professional software and then, subjected to correlation matrices and linear regression statistical analysis in order to find any significant correlations between crown and root measurements (α≤0.05).

RESULTS

Seventy-three out of 247 good quality CBCTs were assessed. Correlation matrices statistical analysis showed linear correlations for some variables investigated, especially for CW/RW pairing in all subgroups (r=0.81, r=0.70 and r=0.58 respectively for single-, two- and three-rooted) and CL/RL in the single-rooted subgroup (r=0.29). Subsequent linear regression analysis allowed to obtain information about roots starting from crown measurements by means of equations [RW=0.76+(0.73×CW) and RL=10.94+(0.25×CL) for single-rooted teeth; RL=1.11+(0.73×CW) and RW=0.99+(0.76×CW), respectively for single- and two-rooted teeth]. No linear correlation was found between crown measurements and C-R angular values.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to obtain root information starting from some crown measurements but these do not fulfil the need of minimal information to guarantee a perfect root position starting from that of crown.

Profile changes in extraction treatments of upper premolars: A case series

This case series describes the soft tissue changes following extraction treatment in two patients with diverse lip thickness, but with similar baseline parameters including: labial competence, soft tissue profile, patient's age, extraction protocol, methods of anchorage, malocclusion, crowding, treatment appliance and mechanics. The same treatment plan involved upper first premolar extractions and lingual appliance combined with skeletal anchorage. The lip thickness played a crucial role in these cases, since a similar change of the incisor position leads to a different profile variation. This difference could be explained by the differing initial lip thicknesses as the patient with thin lips showed a more pronounced profilometric change. The choice of the ideal treatment plan must be tailored to the individual patient, taking into account not only initial skeletal and dental factors but also soft tissue factors, as well as the treatment goals.

Does a black light lens aid in composite removal?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a black light lens as visual aid in composite restoration removal. Lost tooth structure, residual composite, and removal time were compared for operators with different levels of experience.

METHODS

Occlusal preparations in 24 matched-pair extracted molars were etched, bonded, restored with composite, and thermocycled. The restored teeth were radiographed and two faculty and two student doctors removed the restorations with or without a black light lens while time was recorded. Digital scans of the cavity before and after restoration removal were used to calculate lost tooth structure and residual composite.

RESULTS

Removal of restorations resulted in tooth structure loss and left residual composite. The use of the black light lens had no significant effect (two-way ANOVA; p value >0.05). However, operator experience significantly affected operating times and average depth of tooth structure loss (two-way ANOVA; p value <0.05). Student doctors assisted by the black light lost less tooth structure than experienced operators and improved their operating times (multiple comparisons; p value <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The black light lens did not conserve tooth structure or avoid composite remnants compared to routine operation, nor affected the operating time. However, less-experienced operators did benefit from the black light in conserving tooth structure and time.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Replacement of defective composite restorations is a regular practice in restorative dentistry. When existing composite restorations are removed, loss of tooth structure is unavoidable. A black light lens might improve the ability of operators with less experience to conserve tooth structure even though it did not provide benefits for the experienced operators.

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

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.

Fluorescence-aided removal of orthodontic composites: an in vivo comparative study

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.

Effect of handpiece light and material used in pulp chamber on dentin removal during root canal retreatment

This study evaluated the effect of the use of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and flowable bulk-fill resin composite (BFRC) for filling pulp chambers and the type of high-speed handpiece light used on dentin removal during access preparation for endodontic retreatment in molar teeth. Twenty maxillary molars were treated endodontically. BFRC (Opus Bulk Fill Flow APS, FGM) was used to fill the pulp chamber and replace coronal dentin (n = 10). In the remaining teeth, the pulp chamber was filled with GIC (Maxion R, FGM). Conventional resin composite (Opallis, FGM) was used to restore the enamel layer in all teeth. The samples in each group were divided into two subgroups, and the root canals were reaccessed using a handpiece with white or ultraviolet light. The teeth were scanned using micro-CT before and after root canal reaccess. The dentin volume removed was calculated and analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). The crown and pulp chamber locations with dentin removal are described using frequency distribution. During the access, fewer pulp chamber walls were affected and a lower volume of dentin was removed from the pulpal floor in the group restored with GIC than in the group restored with BFRC. No effect was observed on the coronal dentin walls with respect to the filling protocols and type of light used. For dentin removal from the pulp chamber, handpieces with white light performed better than those with ultraviolet light, irrespective of the filling protocol used. The use of GIC to fill the pulp chamber and use of white handpiece light reduced dentin removal from the pulpal floor and resulted in fewer affected dentin walls.