Development of a novel bioactive glass for air-abrasion to selectively remove orthodontic adhesives

• Published in: Clinical oral investigations Vol. 22; no. 4; pp. 1839 - 1849
• Main Authors: Taha, Ayam A., Hill, Robert G., Fleming, Padhraig S., Patel, Mangala P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.05.2018; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abrasion; Adhesives; Air Abrasion, Dental - methods; Apatite; Bicuspid; Biological activity; Ceramics - chemistry; Dental Cements; Dental Debonding - methods; Dental enamel; Dentistry; Enamel; Glass - chemistry; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Materials Testing; Medicine; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Original; Original Article; Orthodontics; Premolars; Scanning electron microscopy; Surface Properties; Tungsten; Tungsten carbide; Bioactive glass; Orthodontic adhesive removal; Air-abrasion
• ISSN: 1432-6981; 1436-3771
• DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2279-8

Objectives To develop a novel, bioactive glass for removing residual orthodontic adhesive via air-abrasion, following bracket debonding, and to evaluate its effectiveness against a proprietary bioactive glass 45S5(Sylc™)-air-abrasion, and a slow-speed tungsten carbide (TC) bur. Materials and methods Three glasses were prepared and their bioactivity was proved. One novel glass (QMAT3) was selected due to its appropriate hardness, lower than that of enamel/45S5(Sylc™). Sixty extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to adhesive removal using: (a) QMAT3-air-abrasion, (b) 45S5(Sylc™)-air-abrasion, and (c) TC bur, which were further subdivided ( n  = 10) based on the adhesive used (Transbond XT™ or Fuji Ortho LC™). Enamel roughness was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and non-contact profilometry before bracket bonding, after removing residual adhesive following bracket debonding and after polishing. Results QMAT3 formed apatite faster (6 h) than 45S5(Sylc™) (24 h) in Tris solution. QMAT3-air-abrasion gave the lowest enamel roughness (Ra) after removing the adhesives. SEM images showed a pitted, roughened enamel surface in the TC bur group and to a lesser extent with 45S5(Sylc™), while a virtually smooth surface without any damage was observed in the QMAT3-air-abrasion group. The time taken for adhesive removal with QMAT3 was comparable to 45S5(Sylc™) but was twice as long with the TC bur. Conclusions QMAT3-air-abrasion is a promising technique for selective removal of adhesives without inducing tangible enamel damage. Clinical relevance A novel bioactive glass has been developed as an alternative to the use of TC burs for orthodontic adhesive removal.