Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Using UV light for adhesive remnant removal after debonding of orthodontic accessories
Kaneshima, Edmilson Nobumito; Berger, Sandrine Bittencourt; Fernandes, Thais Maria Freire; Navarro, Maria Fidela de Lima; Oltramari, Paula Vanessa Pedron.
Affiliation
  • Kaneshima, Edmilson Nobumito; Universidade do Norte do Paraná. Department of Orthodontics. Londrina. BR
  • Berger, Sandrine Bittencourt; Universidade do Norte do Paraná. Department of Operative Dentistry. Londrina. BR
  • Fernandes, Thais Maria Freire; Universidade do Norte do Paraná. Department of Orthodontics. Londrina. BR
  • Navarro, Maria Fidela de Lima; Universidade de São Paulo. Bauru Dental School. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials. Bauru. BR
  • Oltramari, Paula Vanessa Pedron; Universidade do Norte do Paraná. Department of Orthodontics. Londrina. BR
Braz. oral res. (Online) ; 32: e47, 2018. tab, graf
Article in En | LILACS | ID: biblio-952151
Responsible library: BR1.1
ABSTRACT
Abstract The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a UV light-based auxiliary illumination on adhesive remnant (AR) removal after orthodontic debonding. Sixty human molars were divided according to the adhesive used for bonding O-opaque; LF-low fluorescence; and HF-high fluorescence. After debonding, the teeth were subdivided according to the AR removal

method:

No UV light or With UV light. After AR removal, the teeth were polished. Direct visual analysis, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and time quantification for AR removal analyses were performed (Fisher-Freeman-Halton, Fisher's exact, chi-square trend, ANOVA, and independent t-tests; α = 5%). Concerning the adhesives, there was no significant difference among direct visual, SEM and time analyses for AR removal (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding AR removal methods, a similarity among the subgroups was verified for direct visual and SEM analyses (p≥0.05). However, a significant trend was verified for the with UV light method to produce greater marks, and the no UV light method, to produce a greater rate of samples with AR before polishing (p = 0.015). AR removal with light was significantly quicker in comparison with the no UV light method (p < 0.0001). The use of UV light may aid orthodontists in removing AR more thoroughly and in less time. However, they should receive special training to apply this technology, and should never dismiss the final polishing procedure.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Index: LILACS Main subject: Orthodontic Appliances / Ultraviolet Rays / Dental Debonding / Dental Cements / Dental Enamel Type of study: Evaluation_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BOR / Braz Oral Res / Braz oral res / Braz. oral res / Braz. oral res. (Online) / Brazilian Oral Research (Online) / Brazilian oral research / Brazilian oral research (Impresso) Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2018 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Index: LILACS Main subject: Orthodontic Appliances / Ultraviolet Rays / Dental Debonding / Dental Cements / Dental Enamel Type of study: Evaluation_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BOR / Braz Oral Res / Braz oral res / Braz. oral res / Braz. oral res. (Online) / Brazilian Oral Research (Online) / Brazilian oral research / Brazilian oral research (Impresso) Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2018 Type: Article