Effects of adhesive flash-free brackets on debonding pain and time: A randomized split-mouth clinical trial

Assessment of enamel surface roughness and hardness with metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets using different etching and adhesive systems: An in vitro study

Background

This study aimed to evaluate enamel surface roughness and microhardness following the use of different bracket materials (metal or ceramic), etchants (total- and self-etchants), and adhesive systems (precoated or flash-free).

Method

A total of 99 extracted human premolars were selected for the analysis. The surface roughness was first assessed (roughness control). One specimen from each subgroup was examined using a scanning electron microscope to illustrate the surface topography. Eighty-eight teeth were prepared using total- or self-etchants and bonded to precoated or flash-free adhesive metal or ceramic brackets. The remaining 11 specimens were not bonded to brackets (microhardness controls). The brackets were debonded after immersion in distilled water for 24 h. The specimens were again scanned for surface roughness and topography imaging. Finally, the microhardness was assessed using a micro-Vickers hardness test at a force of 200 g for 10 s.

Result

An overall statistically significant increase in surface roughness and reduced surface microhardness were observed in all experimental groups when compared with those in the control groups. The etchant type was the only variable found to contribute to the measured surface properties, with increased roughness and reduced microhardness introduced by total-etching compared to those by self-etching.

Conclusion

Orthodontic brackets introduced a significant increase in enamel surface roughness and reduce microhardness compared with untreated enamel, regardless of the bracket material, etchant type, and adhesive system. The etchant type was the only variable contributing to these changes, with total etching having a more pronounced effect.

Flash-free and conventional adhesive ceramic brackets in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients undergoing multi-bracket orthodontic treatment. PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, CNKI and Grey-literature were searched without restrictions up to January 2022. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I cochrane risk of bias tools. Eight articles, for seven studies, were included in this systematic review, and four split-mouth trials (SMT) were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis found a statistically significant faster bonding time with FFA (mean difference [MD] = -93.85 seconds/quadrant, P = .002, 2 SMT), and no statistically significant difference regarding bracket failure rate at 6 months (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; P = .93, 3 SMT), adhesive removal time (MD = -18.26 seconds/quadrant, P = .50, 2 SMT), and amount of remnant adhesive (MD = -0.13/bracket, P = .72, 2 SMT) between FFA and CVA. No difference (P > .05, 3 SMT) was found in enamel demineralization and periodontal measurements. CVA showed a statistically significant higher debonding pain score (P = .004, 1 SMT). Both flash-free and conventional adhesive ceramic brackets had a similar clinical performance, except for the faster bonding with FFA. Further, well-designed clinical trials are still required.