Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in enamel loss, composite residue, and time during removal of fixed orthodontic retainers using ultraviolet (UV) light compared to standard white light.</p> Methods <p>A&#xa0;nickel–chromium retainer was bonded to 4&#xa0;bovine teeth using a&#xa0;fluorescence-modified composite (Aligner Flow Composite, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany); 20&#xa0;models were created. In a&#xa0;split-mouth design, 2&#xa0;teeth per retainer were removed using standard white light (non-FIT) and 2&#xa0;teeth using the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) with UV light. Removal time was recorded for each tooth. Intraoral and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans were taken of the tooth before bonding (T0) and after retainer removal (T1). The intraoral scans were analyzed using the software Avizo to quantify enamel loss (T0–T1) and composite residue (T1–T0). The OCT scans were evaluated using a&#xa0;dichotomous scoring system for enamel loss and a&#xa0;four-point scoring system for composite residue.</p> Results <p>There was no significant difference in removal time for the two groups. The overlay of intraoral scans showed significantly less enamel loss in area (39.35 ± 39.98 mm<sup>2</sup> vs. 65.44 ± 58.11 mm<sup>2</sup>, <i>p</i> = 0.0235) and volume (3.41 ± 6.15 mm<sup>3</sup> vs.&#xa0;8.86 ± 11.65 mm<sup>3</sup>, <i>p</i> = 0.0116), as well as less composite residue in area (8.22 ± 16.04 mm<sup>2</sup> vs.&#xa0;30.87 ± 49.65 mm<sup>2</sup>, <i>p</i> = 0.0083) and volume (0.41 ± 0.87 mm<sup>3</sup> vs.&#xa0;2.34 ± 3.94 mm<sup>3</sup>, <i>p</i> = 0.0037) in the FIT group compared to standard white light. While OCT scans showed no significant difference in enamel loss, it proved that the amount of composite residue was significantly less in the FIT group compared to the standard light controls (5.88 ± 10.54 vs.&#xa0;22.66 <i>p</i> = 0.0072).</p> Conclusion <p>Although the FIT method does not reduce the removal time of orthodontic fixed retainers, it has been shown to be beneficial in preserving enamel and leaving less composite residue.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) in retainer removal

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月13日

查看全文
  • Henriette Ida Ulrike Stasche,
  • Inga Vanessa Bordihn,
  • Ellen Schulz-Kornas,
  • Rainer Haak,
  • Tobias Meissner,
  • Julian Petersen,
  • Cita Nottmeier,
  • Till Koehne

摘要

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in enamel loss, composite residue, and time during removal of fixed orthodontic retainers using ultraviolet (UV) light compared to standard white light.

Methods

A nickel–chromium retainer was bonded to 4 bovine teeth using a fluorescence-modified composite (Aligner Flow Composite, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany); 20 models were created. In a split-mouth design, 2 teeth per retainer were removed using standard white light (non-FIT) and 2 teeth using the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) with UV light. Removal time was recorded for each tooth. Intraoral and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans were taken of the tooth before bonding (T0) and after retainer removal (T1). The intraoral scans were analyzed using the software Avizo to quantify enamel loss (T0–T1) and composite residue (T1–T0). The OCT scans were evaluated using a dichotomous scoring system for enamel loss and a four-point scoring system for composite residue.

Results

There was no significant difference in removal time for the two groups. The overlay of intraoral scans showed significantly less enamel loss in area (39.35 ± 39.98 mm2 vs. 65.44 ± 58.11 mm2, p = 0.0235) and volume (3.41 ± 6.15 mm3 vs. 8.86 ± 11.65 mm3, p = 0.0116), as well as less composite residue in area (8.22 ± 16.04 mm2 vs. 30.87 ± 49.65 mm2, p = 0.0083) and volume (0.41 ± 0.87 mm3 vs. 2.34 ± 3.94 mm3, p = 0.0037) in the FIT group compared to standard white light. While OCT scans showed no significant difference in enamel loss, it proved that the amount of composite residue was significantly less in the FIT group compared to the standard light controls (5.88 ± 10.54 vs. 22.66 p = 0.0072).

Conclusion

Although the FIT method does not reduce the removal time of orthodontic fixed retainers, it has been shown to be beneficial in preserving enamel and leaving less composite residue.