Effect of Different Chemical Solvents on Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study

AIM

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of various chemical solvents on bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred healthy human premolars with undamaged buccal surfaces that were extracted for orthodontic purposes were gathered. Using 37% orthophosphoric acid, primer, and Transbond XT adhesive, ceramic 0.018" × 0.022" slot orthodontic brackets were adhered to the tooth surface. Following thermocycling, all samples were divided into four groups, with 25 samples in each group: group I: control; group II: application of ethanol; group III: application of acetone; and group IV: application of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Following the debonding tests, a double-ocular stereomicroscope was used to inspect the tooth surfaces. Additionally, adhesive remnant index (ARI) values were evaluated at 40× magnification. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The bond strength was lesser in acetone applied group (16.18 ± 3.64) followed by DMSO applied group (22.08 ± 2.86), ethanol applied group (24.36 ± 4.02), and control group (27.14 ± 3.68). There was a highly significant difference found between the chemical solvents group. The ARI score 3 was present in control (12%), ethanol (8%), and DMSO (4%), and it was absent in acetone applied group. The ARI score 0 was more in acetone applied group (24%).

CONCLUSION

The present study concluded that the reduced debonding force was found with the application of acetone solvent followed by DMSO, ethanol, and control groups. Applying acetone can be a substitute technique to help with ceramic bracket debonding.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Orthodontic bracket debonding cannot occur without shear bond strength (SBS). The need for an ideal debonding technique for ceramic brackets without negative consequences arises from the risk of enamel damage that frequently follows the process. Acetone treatment prior to ceramic bracket debonding could be an alternate clinical technique to preventing enamel damage and facilitating debonding. How to cite this article: Bhushan R, Singh S, Sam G, et al. Effect of Different Chemical Solvents on Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(12):940-943.

Impact of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Orthodontic Tooth Movement and Various Cytokines in Gingival Crevicular Fluid: A Split-Mouth Randomized Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A few investigations have detailed the influence of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM), with varying results. The objectives of this study were twofold: to assess the impact of LLLT on OTM and various cytokine levels in gingival crevicular fluid and to contrast the pain levels experienced by patients receiving orthodontic treatment with and without LLLT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This split-mouth randomized controlled prospective study comprised 40 patients with an average age of 19.7±2.4 years with Angle Class I malocclusion combined with bimaxillary protrusion who were advised for extraction of the maxillary first premolar and bilateral canine distalization. The control-side canine was distalized solely by the coil spring. On the test arm, a low-level gallium-aluminum-arsenide semiconductor diode laser operating at 980 nm and 100 mW with a continuous-wave energy of 8 J/cm2 was used. The canine distalization on either side was measured with a digital caliper following the first premolar extraction (TO), one month after treatment (TOTM1), two months later (TOTM2), and three months later (TOTM3). The gingival index and the level of various cytokines were determined by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at the beginning of the study, on the third and seventh days, and at four, eight, and 12 weeks following the canine distalization. The intra-group and inter-group comparisons were carried out using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests, respectively, at a 5% significance level.

RESULTS

The results show a highly statistically significant difference in the extent of canine distalization in the test group (TOTM1=2.92±0.44; TOTM2=1.04±0.1; TOTM3​=0.62±0.21 mm) in contrast to the control group (TOTM1=3.23±0.8; TOTM2=2.65±0.2; TOTM3​​​​=2.11±0.24 mm) (p<0.01). After three months of canine distalization, the laser and control group had 34 and 27 patients with mild gingivitis, respectively. Interleukin-1β and interleukin-6 concentrations surged with values of 0.74±0.13 and 0.049±0.001 pg/g at seven days following treatment in the laser group, respectively. The difference in tumor necrosis factor concentration between the groups was shown to be highly statistically significant in all treatment phases (p<0.001). The differences in the epidermal growth factor and microglobulin levels were found to be statistically significant within both groups from T0 to T5. The average visual analog scale (VAS) scores at several subsequent evaluations of the laser and control groups were found to be highly statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The findings imply that when the periodontal microenvironment is stimulated by orthodontic force, several paramount cytokines are released, triggering an ordered sequence of biological processes that appear to expedite OTM with reduced associated pain.