Journal of Contemporary Orthodontics

Official Publication of Indian Orthodontic Society


Asokan, Sankar, Jaganathan, Yashwant, Rajamuthu, Alexander, and Arun V: Evaluating the effectiveness of color changing adhesives versus ultraviolet absorbent dye additive adhesives in the removal of adhesive remnants after orthodontic debonding


Introduction

The fixed orthodontic treatment initiates with the bonding of brackets and attachments for orthodontic tooth movement and it terminates with the removal of those brackets and attachments from the surface of the teeth. Bonding of brackets must ensure a good shear bond strength and low bond failure to the orthodontic forces that are applied during orthodontic tooth movement and the forces of mastication on the teeth surface.1, 2 Therefore, this bond strength should cause no or minimal enamel damage while removal of the brackets from the enamel surface after treatment completion.

Various methods of debonding techniques are practiced and the common method of debonding is done with pliers which apply a shear or tensile force to the bonded surface without any potential damage to enamel. Unfortunately there is no standard protocol for the debonding procedure.3, 4 While debonding there is minimal enamel damage which is inescapable because of the micro-mechanical bond between the etched enamel and adhesive utilized for orthodontic bonding. While removing the brackets from the teeth structure there is a bond failure occurring between adhesive-enamel or adhesive-bracket interface (adhesive failure) or within the adhesive (cohesive failure). Usually, the combination of adhesive-enamel failure occurs leaving a considerable amount of adhesive remnants on the enamel surface.5 Metallic orthodontic brackets are widely used for fixed orthodontic treatment and the cris-cross wire mesh fused to the base of the metal brackets provide for mechanical interlocking of metal brackets to the composite resin and hence constituting to a clinically efficient adhesion between bracket base-adhesive-enamel.6

Artun and Bergland used Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) system to measure the amount of adhesive left on the enamel surface after debonding. The differences in ARI scores reflect a difference in bond strength between the enamel and the adhesive. The complete removal of adhesive remnants is an important procedure because it results in excessive plaque accumulation, periodontitis, white spot lesions and enamel discoloration. For achieving a complete removal of adhesive remnants from the tooth surface with negligible damage to the enamel surface, the Orthodontists must take adequate care to remove the adhesive remnants from the enamel surface. This procedure involves a high challenge due to the shade similarities between enamel surface and adhesives as noted by various studies in Orthodontics and Restorative dentistry forums.7, 8, 9

The fluorescent material used in the study emits more visible light than it receives and thus they are utilized for distinguishing the enamel surface and the adhesives for identifying and removal of the adhesive remnants.[9] Various authors and studies have evaluated UV light source as an aid for detecting the composite restoration in Dentistry journals and forensic investigations.3, 10, 11 The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of color changing bonding adhesives versus UV absorbent dye additive adhesives in the removal of adhesive remnants after orthodontic debonding.

Materials and Methods

This in-vitro study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, in tertiary dental college and Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Centralized Instrumentation and Service Laboratory (CISL) in a government affiliated laboratory. Prior to the start of the study the approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IGIDSIEC2020NRP25PGUDODO)]. Based on the findings from Connie Lai and associates sample size was calculated using the formula - n = (Zσ/E)2 (α = 0.05 , Z = 1.96 , σ= 0.08 , E = 0.05), power of 95% to detect a difference greater than 0.5 mm2, and a standard deviation of 0.4 mm2. A sample size of 10 premolar teeth was found to be adequate for each group. Therefore, 40 extracted premolar teeth from patients undergoing therapeutic extractions during Orthodontic treatment were collected. Only teeth with normal tooth morphology, intact buccal enamel, devoid of caries, plaque and calculus were included and teeth treated with chemical agents and visible cracks were excluded. Conventional metal brackets with MBT prescription 0.022” slot were bonded by a single trained investigator with different orthodontic bonding adhesives to the buccal surface of the premolars which were divided randomly into four different groups as mentioned in (Table 1). Teeth from each group were cleaned with water to remove blood stains and tissue remnants which were then polished with ICPA Smile and Shine Polishing kit. Each tooth was mounted on an acrylic block (15×10cm), such that the facial surface of the premolar teeth is perpendicular to the base of the acrylic block.

The enamel surface of each sample was conditioned with 37% Phosphoric acid (EZ Etch) for 30 seconds as instructed by the manufacturer and rinsed with water for 10 seconds. Following the brackets were bonded in each group with respective adhesives (Figure 1, Figure 2), (Table 1). All the samples were placed in a closed container under distilled water for 24 hours before debonding procedure was carried out.

The samples were fixed in the lower jaw of INSTRON (Universal Testing Machine) (Figure 3) and debonded by a sharp pointed device loaded on the upper jaw which moved at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min for debonding of the brackets to standardize the debonding force (1.0 k N) employed during debonding procedure. The tooth surface after debonding procedure were subjected to stereomicroscope and microphotographs were obtained to measure the adhesive remnant index (ARI) score according to Artun J, Bergland (score 0 – no adhesive left on tooth, score 1 - <50% of adhesive on tooth, score 2 - > 50% adhesive left on tooth, score 3 – all adhesive left on tooth), (Figure 4).

The enamel surface with adhesive remnants were removed thoroughly with Tungsten Carbide (12-bladed, SYNDENT) bur in a low speed hand-piece by utilizing the light sources for the specific groups and the time taken for the removal was noted by the same investigator with an assistant to hold the UV flashlight from the point of applying the bur to the end of removal of adhesives. (Table 1), (Figure 5, Figure 6).

The tooth surface after adhesive removal were subjected to stereomicroscope for assessing the adhesive remnant index score for each specimen and photographs were obtained and the images were scaled for the surface area of adhesive remnants which was again traced and calculated using Image J software (National Institutes of Health, Rockville) precisely marked with the end points of the adhesive remnants and joined them to obtain the surface area of the adhesive remnants with respect to length and breadth (Figure 7). All measurements were made twice, 1 week apart by the same trained operator. The repeated measurements were used for assessing intra-rater reliability, and the average was used in the statistical analysis. For assessment under Scanning Electron Microscope (JSM-IT200, In Touch Scope TM). The enamel damage score in all the samples were evaluated according to Howell and Weekes (grade 0 – smooth surface, no scratches, grade 1 - acceptable surface, fine scratches, grade 2 – rough surface, coarse scratches, grade 3 – very rough surface, deep scratches visible in naked eye), (Figure 8).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software. One way ANOVA and Post – Hoc tukey test were used to assess the difference in continuous variables between different groups. Chi square test was used to assess the difference in categorical variables in different groups. p -value of <0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.

Figure 1

Group1 (Enlight + Ortho Solo)

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/95ebd918-5f5b-4f3c-ae61-734a730e33a2-uimage.png

Figure 2

Group2 (Grengloo + Ortho Solo)

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/a6057124-d0f1-4974-aa19-238b7c4cd05a-uimage.png

Figure 3

Group3 (Brace Paste + Ortho Solo)

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/907ed280-9778-48dd-a77e-9aea01784e86-uimage.png

Figure 4

Group4 (Enlight + Ortho Solo + UV dye)

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/453512f6-79c5-421b-a8a8-5b261874deeb-uimage.png

Figure 5

Deboning– Universal testing machine

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/6a8df7ae-d36d-4a26-a8c0-19855a44c163-uimage.png

Figure 6

a: Group 1 – Enlight b: Group 2 – Grengloo c: Group 3 – Brace Paste under UV illumination d: Group 4 – Enlight + UV dye e: Group 4 – Enlight + UV dye + UV flashlight illumination

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/baec62d5-73d4-45fc-adf2-30295bc134d5-uimage.png

Figure 7

UVdye lipstick and UV flash light

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/1b3b0193-3f7d-443e-b340-82e6c7fd9fc2-uimage.png

Figure 8

Adhesiveremnant removal

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/3380b561-822b-4df7-bbce-21b6365926ab-uimage.png

Figure 9

Tungsten carbide bur

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/fbce49d1-dcf9-4794-9d12-19d6f7b65e84-uimage.png

Figure 10

Adhesive remnant measurement in Image J software

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/f47a5306-7a2a-4055-aa3c-71086f82352c-uimage.png

Figure 11

Scanningelectron microscope

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/21c3d26d-9917-4081-a653-bbf9c09b7ae7-uimage.png

Figure 12

Scanningelectron microscope evaluation

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/608ee04d-72af-46da-a66f-79dc8ccff87e/image/f8add1a4-7ab9-4c97-820c-9b81f15543aa-uimage.png

Table 1

Experimental groups

Groups

Bonding adhesives

Evaluating light source

Group 1

Enlight (ormco)

Conventional yellow light

Group 2

Grengloo (ormco)

Conventional yellow light

Group 3

Brace paste (american orthodontics)

Ultra violet light – 395 nm

Group 4

Enlight (ormco) with uv dye additive (uv lipstick - moon glow) incorporated with primer

Ultra violet light – 395 nm

Table 2

ARIindex

Score 0

No adhesive left on the tooth,

Score 1

Less than half of the adhesive left on the tooth

Score 2

More than half of the adhesive left on the tooth

Score 3

All adhesive left on the tooth with distinct impression of the bracket mesh

Table 3

EDIindex

GRADE 0

Perfect and smooth surface. No scratches, distinct intact perikymata;

GRADE 1

Satisfactory surface. Fine scratches, some perikymata;

GRADE 2

Acceptable surface. Several marked and some deeper scratches, no perikymata;

GRADE 3

Imperfect surface. Several distinct deep and coarse scratches, no perikymata;

Table 4

The mean shear bond strength and standard deviation of orthodontic adhesives

Mean (MPa)

Std. Deviation

F - value

p - value

Group – 1

10

14.0090

1.02569

100.685

<0.001

Group – 2

10

22.0820

1.60458

Group – 3

10

17.4550

1.12369

[i] *(Group 1 -Enlight, Group 2 – Grengloo, Group 3 – Brace paste)

Table 5

Post hoc test

(I) Group

(J) Group

Mean Difference (I-J)

Sig.

Group - 1

Group – 2

-8.07300

<0.001

Group – 3

-3.44600

<0.001

Group - 2

Group – 3

4.62700

<0.001

[i] *(Group 1 -Enlight, Group 2 – Grengloo, Group 3 – Brace paste)

Table 6

The mean time taken for adhesive removal, Standard deviation and Standard error values of time taken for removal of adhesive remnants after debonding.

Mean (seconds)

Std. Deviation

p - value

Group 1

10

10.1410

1.02024

0.033

Group 2

10

9.6210

1.50655

Group 3

10

8.5450

1.50945

Group 4

10

8.8160

1.02140

[i] *(Group1 - Enlight, Group 2 – Grengloo, Group 3 – Brace paste, Group 4 – Enlight withUV additive)

Table 7

: Post– Hoc tests

(I) Group

(J) Group

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Group 1

Group 2

.52000

.57586

.845

-1.1686

2.2086

Group 3

1.59600

.57586

.043

-.0926

3.2846

Group 4

1.32500

.57586

.171

-.3636

3.0136

Group 2

Group 3

1.07600

.57586

.337

-.6126

2.7646

Group 4

.80500

.57586

.587

-.8836

2.4936

Group 3

Group 4

-.27100*

.57586

.974

-1.9596

1.4176

[i] *(Group1 - Enlight, Group 2 – Grengloo, Group 3 – Brace paste, Group 4 – Enlight withUV additive)

Table 8

ARI score distribution and Chi – square test

Ari Score

Total

Chi-square value

p-value

0

1

2

3

GROUP

1

Count

%

1

5

3

1

10

10.0%

50.0%

30.0%

10.0%

100.0%

2

Count

%

2

5

3

0

10

2.882

0.969

20.0%

50.0%

30.0%

.0%

100.0%

3

Count

%

2

4

4

0

10

20.0%

40.0%

40.0%

.0%

100.0%

4

Count

%

2

4

3

1

10

20.0%

40.0%

30.0%

10.0%

100.0%

Total

Count

%

7

18

13

2

40

17.5%

45.0%

32.5%

5.0%

100.0%

[i] *(Group1 - Enlight, Group 2 – Grengloo, Group 3 – Brace paste, Group 4 – Enlight withUV additive)

Table 9

The mean area and standard deviation values ofsurface area of adhesive remnants present on the tooth surface after debonding.

Mean

Std. Deviation

p - value

Group 1

10

3.5700

1.54146

0.878

Group 2

10

3.0330

1.63750

Group 3

10

3.4270

1.79859

Group 4

10

3.5650

1.75063

[i] *(Group1 - Enlight, Group 2 – Grengloo, Group 3 – Brace paste, Group 4 – Enlight withUV additive)

Table 9 denotes the mean, standard deviation of the surface area of adhesive remnants present on the tooth surface after debonding of the attachments. Group 1exhibits the highest mean surface area when compared with the other groups. The surface area of adhesive remnants present over the tooth surface between the groups reveals no statistically significant difference. (p>0.05).

Table 10

EDI score distribution and Chi – square test

EDI Score

Total

Chi – square test

p - value

0

1

2

3

Group

1

Count

3

5

2

0

10

2.242

.896

%

30.0%

50.0%

20.0%

0.0%

100.0%

2

Count

4

4

2

0

10

%

40.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

100.0%

3

Count

3

6

1

0

10

%

30.0%

60.0%

10.0%

0.0%

100.0%

4

Count

2

7

1

0

10

%

20.0%

70.0%

10.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Total

Count

%

12

22

6

0

40

30.0%

55.0%

15.0%

0.0%

100.0%

[i] (Group 1 - Enlight, Group 2 –Grengloo, Group 3 – Brace paste, Group 4 – Enlight with UV additive)

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation of shear bond strength between groups. Inferential statistics using post hoc tukey test showed the shear bond strength between the three groups were statistically significant (p<0.05). Group 2 showed highest shear bond strength between the groups. (Table 2)

Table 3 shows time taken parameter for the removal of adhesive remnants between the groups and indicates a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Group 3 showed the least time taken for the removal of adhesive remnants between the groups. (Table 4 ) Frequency distribution of adhesive remnant index score, enamel damage index scores and descriptive analysis of surface area evaluation revealed a statistically insignificant difference between the experimental groups. (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7)

Discussion

The fixed orthodontic treatment initiates with bonding of brackets for orthodontic tooth movement and the treatment terminates with the debonding of the bonded brackets from the enamel surface. The adhesive remnants present over the enamel surface after the debonding procedure lead to the accumulation of plaque and calculus, esthetically compromised appearance, white spot lesions etc. Therefore the knowledge on adhesive remnant removal after debonding procedure in fixed orthodontic treatment has not been clear till now and there is no standard protocol to remove the remnants completely from the enamel surface. Thus the current study was designed to compare and evaluate the effectiveness between the color changing orthodontic bonding adhesives and the UV dye additive orthodontic bonding adhesives in the removal of adhesive remnants (AR) after debonding.

Ari evaluation

The resultant ARI score was recorded as score 1 and 2 predominantly (Table 6 ) similar to the study performed by Mona et al (2009) and Gruheid et al (2015).8, 12

For more precise removal of adhesive remnants and their clear and distinct visualization, in the current study the introduction of a new visualizing aid – UV dye additive a dye extracted from a lipstick (Neon UV lipstick – MOON creations) were applied over the adhesives which showed the enamel surface and adhesives distinctly facilitating less damage to the enamel surface while removing the adhesive remnants. The lipstick included in the current study was a FDA-Approved and bio-compatible one.

Surface area and time evaluation

The photomicrographs obtained from Stereomicroscope were evaluated in ImageJ software as in accordance with the study performed by Connie et al (2019).13 There was no significant difference (p>0.05) in the surface area of the adhesive remnants over the enamel surface between the groups. Ahari et al.14 in a study stated that removal of adhesive remnants with the help of Tungsten carbide bur at a low speed was the safest procedure compared to various methods of adhesive remnant removal from the enamel surface area. Hence the removal of adhesive remnants reduced the enamel damage and the time duration was reported in our current study between the groups.15 Oliver et al.16 claimed high difference in time taken for the removal of adhesive remnants (65.9 seconds vs 191 seconds) when two different operators with different experience levels were assigned. So the current study was in accordance with the previous studies assigned a single operator to eliminate inter-operator reliability.

Enamel damage index evaluation

The resultant EDI score was recorded as score 1, score 0 and followed by score 2. The statistics for the enamel damage index score had no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05) which were similar to the previous literatures reported by Arbutina et al (2018) and Jacqueline et al (2020).17, 15 Pus and Way18 also concluded in a similar study there was a lesser amount of enamel damage evident while using TC bur at low speed. Ribeiro et al9 and Kaneshima et al19 stated in their studies that the use of UV flashlight source for illuminating the adhesive remnants during the removal procedure which resulted in least reduction of enamel loss than it did with the conventional light source.

The current study findings also stated that the use of rotating instruments for adhesive remnants removal procedures caused minimal abrasion on the enamel surface that was proportional to the shape and size of the abrasive particles present on the rotating instrument. Therefore no instrument can result in complete removal of adhesive remnants and however the alteration found on the enamel surface in the current study was not severely affected to alter the integrity of the enamel surface.5

An additional finding was observed on evaluating the shear bond strength between the conventional orthodontic adhesives and color changing orthodontic adhesives and stated that the color changing orthodontic adhesives possess higher shear bond strength than that of the conventional orthodontic adhesives. Orthodontic adhesives in general are manufactured with higher shear bond strength when compared with the optimum shear bond strength given by Reynold et al (1978) of 6 to 8 MPa as mentioned in his classical works.20

Limitations of the study

This in- vitro research study was done to simulate the beneficial aids to the clinical scenario in future years for excellent patient care and delivering best treatment results for the patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. However, it is hard to extrapolate the results which have been obtained in the in-vitro study conditions to an in-vivo study conditions it could be used as a resource for the future studies.

Conclusion

The current study concluded with the introduction of a new auxiliary and a bio - compatible additive (UV dye additive) for the removal of adhesive remnants from the enamel surface with clear visual distinction between the enamel surface and the adhesive and the color changing bonding adhesives included in the study has their own unique property of color change and fluorescence which has been incorporated in the material which resulted in reduction in time taken for the removal of the adhesive remnants without any potential enamel damage respectively. Future research with the available resources would benefit the Orthodontists and the patients as well for betterment in treatment outcome.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1 

HB Pont M Özcan B Bagis Y Ren Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluationAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop201013843878

2 

T Ozer G Başaran J D Kama Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatmentAm J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2010137336874

3 

M Habibi TH Nik T Hooshmand Comparison of debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel: An in-vitro studyAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2007132567584

4 

KV Krell JM Courey SE Bishara Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirementsAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop1993103325866

5 

A Bonetti G Zanarini M Marchionni I Parenti S Lattuca Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding: An in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopyAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop20111405696702

6 

SK Sharma-Sayal PE Rossouw GV Kulkarni KC Titley The influence of orthodontic bracket base design on shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop200312417482

7 

J Årtun S Bergland Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Ame J orthod198485433373

8 

MA Montasser JL Drummond Reliability of the adhesive remnant index score system with different magnifications. Angle Orthod20097947739

9 

LA Antonio Ribeiro LP Figueiredo Almeida RP Martins Assessing adhesive remnant removal and enamel damage with ultraviolet light: An in-vitro studyAm J Orthod Dentofac Orthop201715122926

10 

SA Hermanson A Mary GR Miller JP Bush Ultraviolet Illumination as an Adjunctive Aid in Dental Inspection.J Forensic Sci200853240811

11 

F Ahrari M Akbari J Akbari G Dabiri Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniquesJ Dent (Tehran)20131018293

12 

M Ozcan K Finnema A Ybema Evaluation of failure characteristics and bond strength after ceramic and polycarbonate bracket debonding: effect of bracket base silanization.Eur J Orthod200830217682

13 

C Lai JP Bush A David An in vitro comparison of ultraviolet versus white light in the detection of adhesive remnants during orthodontic debonding. Angle Orthod201989343845

14 

F Ahrari M Akbari J Akbari G Dabiri Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques.J Dent (Tehran, Iran)201310182

15 

A Arbutina M Arapovic-Savic M Umicevic-Davidovic Evaluation of enamel surface after bracket debonding and adhesive removal with six different methodsSrp Arh Celok Lek202014874049

16 

RG Oliver J Griffiths Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding—time taken and surface enamel appearance.Brit J Orthod19921921317

17 

C Lai PJ Bush S Warunek A David An in vitro comparison of ultraviolet versus white light in the detection of adhesive remnants during orthodontic debonding.Angle Orthod201989343845

18 

MD Pus DC Way Enamel loss due to orthodontic bonding with filled and unfilled resins using various clean-up techniques.Am J Orthod198077326983

19 

EN Kaneshima SB Berger TMF Fernandes MF Navarro Using UV light for adhesive remnant removal after debonding of orthodontic accessories.Braz Oral Res20173247

20 

IR Reynolds A review of direct orthodontic bonding.Brit J Orthod1975231718



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International, which allows others to remix, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article History

Received : 14-03-2024

Accepted : 28-04-2024


View Article

PDF File   Full Text Article


Downlaod

PDF File   XML File   ePub File


Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Article DOI

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jco.2024.039


Article Metrics






Article Access statistics

Viewed: 320

PDF Downloaded: 114