Evaluation of the Flash-Free Adhesive System for a 6-month Period: A Split-Mouth Trial.

Objective: To compare the adhesive pre-coated (APC) flash-free (FF) appliance system (3M Unitek) with an operator-coated (OC) system (Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive Paste; 3M Unitek) in terms of bond failure, bracket survival, and chair time. Methods: This single-center study was planned with 30 non-extraction patients, 22 females and 8 males with an average age of 17 years and 5 months. A split-mouth design was used, and bonding time, failed brackets, reasons for failure, and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were noted. The data were analyzed with the chi-square, Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: OC and FF adhesive-coated brackets demonstrated bond failure rates of 0.7% and 3.0%, respectively. Failure rates and survival rates presented a statistically significant difference (p=0.033). Although higher bond failure for the lower arch along with higher bond failure for the incisor teeth compared with the premolar teeth were found, these findings were not statistically significant (p=0.128; p=0.261, respectively). The effect of gender on the bond failure rate (p=0.463) and survival rate (p=0.473) was not statistically significant. A significant difference was obtained for the ARI scores (p=0.011). The bonding time for each bracket type (64.43 seconds for FF versus 98.97 seconds for OC) demonstrated a significant difference (p=0.174). Conclusion: The bond failure rate was higher for the FF APC brackets, but the chair time reduction during bonding was recorded. Therefore, it seems that FF APC brackets are promising. Trial registration: ISRCTNand ISRCTN26731749. Registered October 7, 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN26731749.

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.

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.

Six-month bracket failure rate with a flowable composite: A split-mouth randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: The use of flowable composites as an orthodontic bonding adhesive merits great attention because of their adequate bond strength, ease of clinical handling and reduced number of steps in bonding. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Randomized Controlled Trial was to comparatively evaluate over a 6-month period the bond failure rate of a flowable composite (Heliosit Orthodontic, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan) and a conventional orthodontic bonding adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek). METHODS: 53 consecutive patients (23 males and 30 females) who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. A total of 891 brackets were analyzed, where 444 brackets were bonded using Heliosit Orthodontic and 447 brackets were bonded using Transbond XT. The survival rates of brackets were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Bracket survival distributions for bonding adhesives, tooth location and dental arch were compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The failure rates of the Transbond XT and the Heliosit Orthodontic groups were 8.1% and 6% respectively. No significant differences in the survival rates were observed between them (p= 0.242). There was no statistically significant difference in the bond failure rates when the clinical performance of the maxillary versus the mandibular arches and the anterior versus the posterior segments were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems had clinically acceptable bond failure rates and are adequate for orthodontic bonding needs.

RESUMO INTRODUÇÃO: o uso de resinas compostas fluidas como agentes de cimentação em Ortodontia tem merecido grande atenção, em função de sua adequada capacidade adesiva, facilidade de uso clínico e número reduzido de etapas de colagem. OBJETIVO: o objetivo deste estudo randomizado controlado foi avaliar o índice de falhas nos 6 meses após a colagem com uma resina composta fluida (Heliosit Orthodontic, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan), em comparação com um adesivo ortodôntico convencional (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek). MÉTODOS: 53 pacientes consecutivos (23 homens e 30 mulheres) que se enquadravam nos critérios de inclusão adotados foram incluídos no presente estudo. No total, 891 braquetes foram analisados, sendo 444 colados com o Heliosit Orthodontic e 447 colados com o Transbond XT. As taxas de sobrevivência dos braquetes foram estimadas por meio da análise de Kaplan-Meier. As distribuições das taxas de sobrevivência dos braquetes em função do adesivo usado, do dente e da arcada dentária em questão foram comparadas por meio do teste de log-rank. RESULTADOS: os índices de falhas para os grupos Transbond XT e Heliosit Orthodontic foram, respectivamente, de 8,1% e 6%. Não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre os grupos quanto às taxas de sobrevivência dos braquetes (p= 0,242). Também não foram observadas diferenças estatisticamente significativas quanto aos índices de falhas quando se comparou a performance clínica nas arcadas dentárias superior e inferior, e nos segmentos anterior e posterior da boca. CONCLUSÕES: ambos os sistemas apresentaram índices de falhas clinicamente aceitáveis, podendo ser considerados adequados para a colagem ortodôntica.