Debonding and adhesive remnant cleanup: An in vitro comparison of bond quality, adhesive remnant cleanup, and orthodontic acceptance of a flash-free product

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background/objectives: A new flash-free adhesive promises to eliminate the need to clean up excess adhesive upon orthodontic bracket bonding. This study evaluated this new adhesive with regard to microleakage at the enamel-bracket interface, amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth after bracket debonding, time required for adhesive remnant cleanup, and clinical practitioners' preference in comparison to a conventional adhesive. Materials/methods: A total of 184 bovine incisors were bonded with ceramic brackets using either the flash-free adhesive (APC Flash-Free Adhesive Coated Appliance System, 3M Unitek [3M], Monrovia, California, USA) or a conventional adhesive (APCII Adhesive Coated Appliance System, 3M). Twenty-four of the teeth were scanned using microcomputed tomography to quantify microleakage into the adhesive layer. Twenty orthodontists debonded the brackets, removed the remaining adhesive, and then completed a survey regarding their preference for one of the two adhesives. The adhesive remnant was quantified and the time required for its removal recorded. Differences between the adhesives were tested for statistical significance. Results: For both adhesives, the microleakage was minimal with no significant differences between the two adhesives. The adhesive remnant was significantly larger for the flash-free adhesive, whereas there was no significant difference in adhesive cleanup time. Fourteen out of the 20 orthodontists preferred the flash-free adhesive over the conventional adhesive. Limitations: In vitro testing cannot replicate the actual clinical situation during in vivo debonding. Conclusions: With regard to bond quality and adhesive remnant cleanup, the new flash-free adhesive performs just as well as the conventional adhesive, and, of the two products, is the one preferred by most orthodontists.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)497-502
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Orthodontics
Volume37
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2015

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 The Author.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Debonding and adhesive remnant cleanup: An in vitro comparison of bond quality, adhesive remnant cleanup, and orthodontic acceptance of a flash-free product'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this