Fluorescence-Aided Identification Technique (FIT) Improves Tooth Surface Clean-Up after Debonding of Buccal and Lingual Orthodontic Appliances

The human fluorescence discrimination as precondition for the use of fluorescence-aided identification techniques (FIT)

OBJECTIVES

The fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) is based on the fluorescence properties of dental materials, specifically the intensity of their fluorescence compared to the autofluorescence of hard dental substances; this creates a perceived contrast between dental material and tooth. However, no studies to date have determined the extent to which the fluorescence intensity of tooth-colored dental materials must differ from that of natural autofluorescence to ensure reliable visual detection. The aim of this study was therefore to determine, for the first time, how pronounced the difference between fluorescence intensity and autofluorescence must be to reliably identify tooth-colored material.

METHODS

Ten dentists assessed six different resin-based composite (RBC) samples of varying fluorescence intensity placed in the cavities of ten extracted teeth under standardized fluorescence-exciting illumination. The outcome variable was fluorescence perceptibility. Their assessments of the outcome variable were compared with measurements of the fluorescence intensities of the RBCs and the surrounding dental hard tissues, which were expressed as a fluorescence intensity ratio. Demographic data of the participants, including age, gender, and professional experience, were also recorded.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found for visual fluorescence perceptibility in relation to the explanatory variables of gender (p = 0.14), age (p = 0.13), and professional experience (p = 0.34). In contrast, the fluorescence intensity ratio was significantly different (p < 0.0001).

SIGNIFICANCE

For both clinicians and manufacturers, fluorescence intensity levels are important when selecting or developing FIT-compatible materials. Our results suggest that the fluorescence intensity levels of dental materials should be no more than 75% and no less than 200% of tooth natural autofluorescence to ensure reliable detection of tooth-colored materials.

Fluorescence intensity of composite resin for direct veneer removal using a fluorescence-aided identification technique

OBJECTIVES

This laboratory study evaluated the influence of the fluorescence intensity of composite resins on additional tooth wear and the presence of restorative material in different dental thirds during the retreatment of direct veneers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The crown dimensions of 60 bovine incisors were reduced to 10 × 8 mm. The teeth were classified according to the fluorescence intensity of the composites: low (LOW) (TPH Spectra), medium (MED) (Opallis), and high (HIGH) (Essentia) groups. The teeth were divided according to the removal methods: conventional (CON) and fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT). The specimens were scanned (T0), received veneer preparation, and scanned again (T1). After restorations, the composites were removed and the teeth were scanned (T2). Measurement assessments between T1 and T2 were performed to determine additional wear, presence of residual areas, and the average between additional wear and the presence of residual areas. Kruskal Wallis, Mann-Whitney, Friedman, 2-way ANOVA, and post-Tukey tests were performed (α < 0.05).

RESULTS

The comparison of composite resins indicated a smaller area of additional wear and greater residue presence in the HIGH group than the LOW group for both techniques in the cervical third. Regarding removal methods, the FIT produced greater additional wear than the CON method for the LOW and MED groups in the middle and cervical thirds. The incisal third exhibited greater additional wear than the other thirds.

CONCLUSIONS

Composite resins with high fluorescence intensity removed using FIT had less tooth wear. The incisal third was the most affected area for direct veneer removal procedures.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A FIT has been proposed for composite resin removal; however, the different fluorescence intensities of composite resins can influence tooth wear caused during this procedure.

In Vitro Study on the Influence of the Buccal Surface Convexity of the Tooth upon Enamel Loss after Bracket Removal

Polishing after the removal of brackets is the final step in orthodontic treatment. It is simple to perform, though some studies have reported that polishing causes damage to the enamel surface. An in vitro study was made of the influence of the buccal surface convexity of the tooth upon possible enamel loss when the remaining resin and adhesive are removed after bracket decementing using two different polishing modes: a tungsten carbide bur at low and high speeds. The convexity of the buccal surface was quantified in 30 incisors and 30 premolars. A stereoscopic microscope was used to obtain photographs of the profile of the crown, and Image J software was used to calculate convexity by dividing the length of a line from the cementoenamel junction to the incisal margin by another line from the mentioned junction to the maximum convexity of the buccal surface. Brackets were cemented on all the teeth and were decemented 24 h later. In both groups, the residual composite was removed with a tungsten carbide bur at a low speed in one-half of the teeth and at a high speed in the other half. The buccal surface of each tooth was then photographed again, and the convexity was calculated and compared against the baseline value. The difference between the two values were taken to represent the enamel loss. The convexity of the premolars was significantly greater than that of the incisors, but this did not result in greater enamel loss when the same polishing mode was used. However, the tungsten carbide bur at a high speed proved more aggressive, causing significantly greater enamel loss than when used at a low speed.

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.