Cargando…
Influence of Different Bracket Adhesive Systems on Enamel Demineralization—An In Vitro Study
Background: enamel demineralization is a common side effect of orthodontic therapy with fixed braces. The aim of the present in vitro study was to compare a conventional adhesive system and a modern adhesive system (APC Flash-Free [FF] technology) with regard to the demineralization of enamel by Str...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10342608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37445529 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134494 |
_version_ | 1785072539681161216 |
---|---|
author | Hennig, Christoph-Ludwig Löhnert, Simon Nitzsche, Ann Nietzsche, Sandor Steiniger, Frank Marquetand, Justus Tolksdorf, Konrad Guellmar, André Sigusch, Bernd Jacobs, Collin |
author_facet | Hennig, Christoph-Ludwig Löhnert, Simon Nitzsche, Ann Nietzsche, Sandor Steiniger, Frank Marquetand, Justus Tolksdorf, Konrad Guellmar, André Sigusch, Bernd Jacobs, Collin |
author_sort | Hennig, Christoph-Ludwig |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: enamel demineralization is a common side effect of orthodontic therapy with fixed braces. The aim of the present in vitro study was to compare a conventional adhesive system and a modern adhesive system (APC Flash-Free [FF] technology) with regard to the demineralization of enamel by Streptococcus sobrinus (S. sobrinus). Methods: this in vitro study included premolar teeth and compared APC FF adhesive brackets (Group A, n = 15) with conventional adhesive brackets (Group B, n = 15) from the same company. Specimens were incubated with a positive control group (PCG, n = 5) and a negative control group (NCG, n = 5) in an S. sobrinus suspension for three weeks. To evaluate the grade of enamel demineralization, the samples were analyzed using a polarizing microscope. Results: the test specimens of group B with conventionally bonded bracket adhesive showed significantly greater (+10.8 μm) demineralization with regard to the penetration depth of the demineralization than the PCG (p = 0.012). Thus, there was a difference from group A with the new bracket adhesive of the FF brackets (+7.29 μm). Significantly, demineralization was more pronounced cervically than coronally in both groups, and it occurred cervically more frequently than grade 3 demineralization (p = 0.001). Conclusions: it seems plausible that new orthodontic bracket adhesives and the modern FF adhesive system positively contribute to the reduction in enamel demineralization during orthodontic treatment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10342608 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103426082023-07-14 Influence of Different Bracket Adhesive Systems on Enamel Demineralization—An In Vitro Study Hennig, Christoph-Ludwig Löhnert, Simon Nitzsche, Ann Nietzsche, Sandor Steiniger, Frank Marquetand, Justus Tolksdorf, Konrad Guellmar, André Sigusch, Bernd Jacobs, Collin J Clin Med Article Background: enamel demineralization is a common side effect of orthodontic therapy with fixed braces. The aim of the present in vitro study was to compare a conventional adhesive system and a modern adhesive system (APC Flash-Free [FF] technology) with regard to the demineralization of enamel by Streptococcus sobrinus (S. sobrinus). Methods: this in vitro study included premolar teeth and compared APC FF adhesive brackets (Group A, n = 15) with conventional adhesive brackets (Group B, n = 15) from the same company. Specimens were incubated with a positive control group (PCG, n = 5) and a negative control group (NCG, n = 5) in an S. sobrinus suspension for three weeks. To evaluate the grade of enamel demineralization, the samples were analyzed using a polarizing microscope. Results: the test specimens of group B with conventionally bonded bracket adhesive showed significantly greater (+10.8 μm) demineralization with regard to the penetration depth of the demineralization than the PCG (p = 0.012). Thus, there was a difference from group A with the new bracket adhesive of the FF brackets (+7.29 μm). Significantly, demineralization was more pronounced cervically than coronally in both groups, and it occurred cervically more frequently than grade 3 demineralization (p = 0.001). Conclusions: it seems plausible that new orthodontic bracket adhesives and the modern FF adhesive system positively contribute to the reduction in enamel demineralization during orthodontic treatment. MDPI 2023-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10342608/ /pubmed/37445529 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134494 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Hennig, Christoph-Ludwig Löhnert, Simon Nitzsche, Ann Nietzsche, Sandor Steiniger, Frank Marquetand, Justus Tolksdorf, Konrad Guellmar, André Sigusch, Bernd Jacobs, Collin Influence of Different Bracket Adhesive Systems on Enamel Demineralization—An In Vitro Study |
title | Influence of Different Bracket Adhesive Systems on Enamel Demineralization—An In Vitro Study |
title_full | Influence of Different Bracket Adhesive Systems on Enamel Demineralization—An In Vitro Study |
title_fullStr | Influence of Different Bracket Adhesive Systems on Enamel Demineralization—An In Vitro Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of Different Bracket Adhesive Systems on Enamel Demineralization—An In Vitro Study |
title_short | Influence of Different Bracket Adhesive Systems on Enamel Demineralization—An In Vitro Study |
title_sort | influence of different bracket adhesive systems on enamel demineralization—an in vitro study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10342608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37445529 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134494 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hennigchristophludwig influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT lohnertsimon influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT nitzscheann influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT nietzschesandor influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT steinigerfrank influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT marquetandjustus influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT tolksdorfkonrad influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT guellmarandre influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT siguschbernd influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy AT jacobscollin influenceofdifferentbracketadhesivesystemsonenameldemineralizationaninvitrostudy |