Comparison of Enamel Discoloration using Flash-Free and Conventional Adhesive Brackets with Different Finishing Protocols.

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Abdullah Kaya, Fundagül Bilgiç Zortuk
{"title":"Comparison of Enamel Discoloration using Flash-Free and Conventional Adhesive Brackets with Different Finishing Protocols.","authors":"Abdullah Kaya, Fundagül Bilgiç Zortuk","doi":"10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2023.2022.154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the effects of flash-free and conventional adhesive brackets and different finishing techniques on enamel discoloration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty human premolar teeth were utilized and randomly divided into four groups based on the type of brackets and finishing technique: (1) Gemini<sup>®</sup> brackets were used for orthodontic bonding. After debanding, adhesive remnants were cleaned using a 12-blade tungsten carbide bur. (2) Gemini<sup>®</sup> suspenders were used for orthodontic bonding. After debanding the brackets, adhesive remnants were cleaned using12-blade APC™ Flash-Free brackets were used for orthodontic bonding. After debanding, adhesive remnants were cleaned a 12-blade tungsten carbide bur and polished with Sof-Lex disks. (4) APC™ Flash-Free brackets were used for orthodontic bonding. After debanding, the adhesive remnants were cleaned using a 12-blade tungsten carbide bur. A Vita Easyshade spectrophotometer was used to measure the color change values of the 40 teeth.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The color change of the enamel surface in the Flash Free bracket group was significantly less than that in the conventional groups (p=0.003 p˂0.05). The mean ΔE values obtained from the Sof-Lex groups were lower than those obtained from the groups without Sof-Lex, but these results were not statistically significant (p=0.280 p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is recommended to use Flash-Free brackets and polish with Sof-Lex disk following the clean-up procedures to minimize the possibility of discoloration of the teeth during orthodontic treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":37013,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"36 4","pages":"248-253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10763598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2023.2022.154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of flash-free and conventional adhesive brackets and different finishing techniques on enamel discoloration.

Methods: Forty human premolar teeth were utilized and randomly divided into four groups based on the type of brackets and finishing technique: (1) Gemini® brackets were used for orthodontic bonding. After debanding, adhesive remnants were cleaned using a 12-blade tungsten carbide bur. (2) Gemini® suspenders were used for orthodontic bonding. After debanding the brackets, adhesive remnants were cleaned using12-blade APC™ Flash-Free brackets were used for orthodontic bonding. After debanding, adhesive remnants were cleaned a 12-blade tungsten carbide bur and polished with Sof-Lex disks. (4) APC™ Flash-Free brackets were used for orthodontic bonding. After debanding, the adhesive remnants were cleaned using a 12-blade tungsten carbide bur. A Vita Easyshade spectrophotometer was used to measure the color change values of the 40 teeth.

Results: The color change of the enamel surface in the Flash Free bracket group was significantly less than that in the conventional groups (p=0.003 p˂0.05). The mean ΔE values obtained from the Sof-Lex groups were lower than those obtained from the groups without Sof-Lex, but these results were not statistically significant (p=0.280 p>0.05).

Conclusion: It is recommended to use Flash-Free brackets and polish with Sof-Lex disk following the clean-up procedures to minimize the possibility of discoloration of the teeth during orthodontic treatment.

比较使用无闪烁和传统粘接托槽以及不同抛光方案的釉质变色情况。
研究目的本研究的目的是比较无闪烁托槽和传统粘接托槽以及不同矫治技术对牙釉质变色的影响:采用 40 颗人类前臼齿,根据托槽类型和表面处理技术随机分为四组:(1) Gemini® 托槽用于正畸粘接。去毛刺后,使用 12 片碳化钨毛刺清洁残留的粘合剂。(2) Gemini® 悬带用于正畸粘接。托槽脱模后,使用 12 片 APC™ 无闪烁托槽清洁残留的粘合剂。脱模后,用 12 片碳化钨毛刺清洁残余粘合剂,并用 Sof-Lex 研磨盘抛光。(4) APC™ 无闪烁托槽用于正畸粘接。除砂后,使用 12 片碳化钨锉刀清洁残留的粘合剂。使用 Vita Easyshade 分光光度计测量 40 颗牙齿的颜色变化值:无闪烁托槽组牙釉质表面的颜色变化明显小于传统组(p=0.003 p˂0.05)。Sof-Lex组获得的平均ΔE值低于无Sof-Lex组,但这些结果在统计学上并不显著(p=0.280 p>0.05):建议使用无闪烁托槽,并在清洁程序后使用Sof-Lex抛光盘抛光,以尽量减少牙齿在正畸治疗期间变色的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信