PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 15, 2024Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry7 citationsOpen Access

Enamel demineralization around Orthodontic brackets bonded with new bioactive composite (in-vitro study)

View Full Paper
NANoor AM AliLNLayth MK NissanAKAmar H Khamis

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

background: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of bioactive composite (ACTIVA) on enamel demineralisation when used as an orthodontic adhesive, compared to other adhesives. Materials and methods: Human upper premolars (n=64) were randomly divided into two equal groups; the first group stored the bonded teeth in deionised water for 30 days at 37°C, and the second group exposed the bonded teeth to acidic media. Each group was further subdivided into four subgroups, with eight premolars in each subgroup, based on the type of adhesive used to bond metal brackets: non-fluoride-releasing adhesive (Transbond XT), fluoride-releasing adhesive (Light Bond), light-cured, resin-reinforced glass ionomer (GC Fuji ortho LC), and bioactive restorative composite (ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE). Enamel demineralisation was assessed at baseline and after 30 days with a laser fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent™ Pen). Results: There were significant differences in fluorescence variation values (ΔFV) among all four tested adhesive systems in both water and acid groups after 30 days. Light Bond adhesive showed the highest fluorescence variation value, while glass ionomer showed the lowest, indicating less enamel demineralisation around the bracket. ACTIVA had less enamel demineralisation in acidic media. However, there was no significant difference in enamel demineralisation between water storage and acidic media groups. Conclusion: ACTIVA (RMGIC + composite) exhibited less enamel demineralisation than Light Bond; however, Fuji ortho LC showed the lowest enamel demineralisation.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ali et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e64892b6db6435875da276https://doi.org/10.26477/jbcd.v36i2.3678
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Time-Dependent Adhesion and Fluoride Release of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements on Demineralized Enamel, Sound Enamel and Dentine2025 · 1 citations
  2. 2Soft adhesives may cause more iatrogenic damage than hard adhesives during cleanup following bracket removal2025
  3. 3Comparison of Dentin Bond Strength Between a Bioactive Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Conventional Self-Adhesive Resin Cement: An In Vitro Study2026
  4. 4Clinical and Laboratory Performance of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review of Pediatric Evidence2026
  5. 5Effects of demineralization around orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive agents on fatigue-based shear bond strength: an in vitro comparative study2026