A comparative assessment of bracket survival and adhesive removal time using flash-free or conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

被引:20
|
作者
Grunheid, Thorsten [1 ]
Larson, Brent E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Sch Dent, Div Orthodont, 6-320 Moos Hlth Sci Tower,515 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
关键词
Bracket survival; Adhesive removal time; Adhesive; Bonding; STRENGTH; CLEANUP; LIGHT;
D O I
10.2319/030918-195.1
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: To compare bracket survival and adhesive removal time between a flash-free and a conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding. Materials and Methods: Forty-five consecutive patients had their maxillary incisors, canines, and premolars bonded with ceramic brackets using a flash-free adhesive (APC Flash-Free Adhesive, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) on one side and a conventional adhesive (APCII Adhesive, 3M Unitek) on the other side. The side allocation was randomized. Bracket failure was recorded at 4-week intervals. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored on debond and adhesive removal timed to the nearest second. The primary outcome was adhesive removal time per quadrant. Secondary outcomes were bracket failure rate, time to first-time failure of a bracket, and ARI score on debond. Paired t-tests were used to compare adhesive removal times and ARI scores between the adhesives with P < .05 considered statistically significant. Results: Bracket failure rates were 4.3% for the flash-free adhesive and 1.9% for the conventional adhesive, with mean times to first-time failure of 31 weeks for the flash-free adhesive and 42 weeks for the conventional adhesive; neither failure rates nor times to first failure were significantly different. Although the flash-free adhesive left significantly more adhesive on the tooth surface after debonding, the adhesive removal times were 22.2% shorter than with the conventional adhesive. Conclusions: Bracket survival with the flash-free adhesive was equivalent to the conventional adhesive when ceramic brackets were bonded. Adhesive removal was significantly faster when using the flash-free adhesive, which may result in time savings of more than 20% compared with the conventional adhesive.
引用
收藏
页码:299 / 305
页数:7
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] Comparative assessment of bonding time and 1-year bracket survival using flash-free and conventional adhesives for orthodontic bracket bonging: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial
    Grunheid, Thorsten
    Larson, Brent E.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2018, 154 (05) : 621 - 628
  • [2] Effects of adhesive flash-free brackets on debonding pain and time: A randomized split-mouth clinical trial
    Cokakoglu, Serpil
    Tan, Ayten
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2020, 90 (06) : 758 - 765
  • [3] Evaluation of the Flash-Free Adhesive System for a 6-month Period: A Split-Mouth Trial
    Baker, Dina
    Turk, Selma Elekdag
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2023, 36 (02) : 118 - 125
  • [4] Direct versus fully digital indirect bracket bonding: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial on accuracy
    Hoekstra-van Hout, Pauline M. J.
    Hoekstra, Jan Willem M.
    Bruggink, Robin
    Bronkhorst, Ewald M.
    Ongkosuwito, Edwin M.
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2024, 28 (10)
  • [5] Eighteen-Month Orthodontic Bracket Survival Rate with the Conventional Bonding Technique versus RMGIC and V-Prep: A Split-Mouth RCT
    Ghoubril, Victor
    Ghoubril, Joseph
    Abboud, Maher
    Bou Sakr, Tatiana
    Hardan, Louis
    Khoury, Elie
    COATINGS, 2023, 13 (08)
  • [6] Survival rate of indirectly bonded brackets using single vs. two-component orthodontic adhesive: A 12-month split-mouth clinical trial
    Pellitteri, Federica
    Cremonini, Francesca
    Bellavia, Marco
    Palone, Mario
    Lombardo, Luca
    SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL, 2023, 35 (06) : 657 - 662
  • [7] Effect of different enamel pretreating agents on bonding efficacy and survival rates of orthodontic brackets: In vitro study and split-mouth randomized clinical trial
    Scribante, Andrea
    Gallo, Simone
    Pascadopoli, Maurizio
    Catalano, Federico
    Gandini, Paola
    Sfondrini, Maria Francesca
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2022, 162 (03) : 297 - 306
  • [8] Postoperative sensitivity in posterior restorations restored with self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill resin composites: A randomized clinical split-mouth trial
    Maghaireh, Ghada A.
    Albashaireh, Zakereyya S.
    Allouz, Hadeel A.
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 137
  • [9] ENAP vs LANAP: assessment of revascularization using ultrasound Doppler flowmetry—a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial
    Shaik Sameera
    Pavuluri Aravind Kumar
    Medandrao Nagasri
    Pantareddy Indeevar
    Kalapala Raviraj
    Lasers in Medical Science, 2018, 33 : 1181 - 1188
  • [10] ENAP vs LANAP: assessment of revascularization using ultrasound Doppler flowmetry-a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial
    Sameera, Shaik
    Kumar, Pavuluri Aravind
    Nagasri, Medandrao
    Indeevar, Pantareddy
    Raviraj, Kalapala
    LASERS IN MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2018, 33 (06) : 1181 - 1188