Using UV light for adhesive remnant removal after debonding of orthodontic accessories

• Published in: Brazilian oral research Vol. 32; p. e47
• Main Authors: Kaneshima, Edmilson Nobumito, Berger, Sandrine Bittencourt, Fernandes, Thais Maria Freire, Navarro, Maria Fidela de Lima, Oltramari, Paula Vanessa Pedron
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Portuguese
• Published: Brazil Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO 21.09.2018; Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; Dental Cements - chemistry; Dental Cements - radiation effects; Dental Debonding - methods; Dental Enamel; Dental Enamel - radiation effects; Dental Polishing - methods; Dentistry; DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE; Fluorescence; Humans; Materials Testing; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontics; Reference Values; Reproducibility of Results; Surface Properties - radiation effects; Time Factors; Ultraviolet Rays; Dental Enamel; Fluorescence; Orthodontics
• ISSN: 1806-8324; 1807-3107; 1807-3107
• DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0047

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.