Stasche Henriette Ida Ulrike, Bordihn Inga Vanessa, Schulz-Kornas Ellen, Haak Rainer, Meissner Tobias, Petersen Julian, Nottmeier Cita, Koehne Till
Department of Orthodontics, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
J Orofac Orthop. 2025 Aug 13. doi: 10.1007/s00056-025-00606-w.
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.
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.
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 vs. 65.44 ± 58.11 mm, p = 0.0235) and volume (3.41 ± 6.15 mm vs. 8.86 ± 11.65 mm, p = 0.0116), as well as less composite residue in area (8.22 ± 16.04 mm vs. 30.87 ± 49.65 mm, p = 0.0083) and volume (0.41 ± 0.87 mm vs. 2.34 ± 3.94 mm, 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).
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.
本研究旨在调查与标准白光相比，使用紫外线（UV）光去除固定正畸保持器时牙釉质损失、复合树脂残留及所需时间的差异。
使用荧光改性复合树脂（Aligner Flow Composite，Voco，德国库克斯港）将镍铬保持器粘结到4颗牛牙上，制作20个模型。采用双侧设计，每个保持器的2颗牙使用标准白光（非FIT）去除，另外2颗牙使用紫外线光辅助识别技术（FIT）去除。记录每颗牙的去除时间。在粘结前（T0）和去除保持器后（T1）对牙齿进行口腔内扫描和光学相干断层扫描（OCT）。使用Avizo软件分析口腔内扫描图像，以量化牙釉质损失（T0 - T1）和复合树脂残留（T1 - T0）。使用二分评分系统评估OCT扫描图像中的牙釉质损失，使用四点评分系统评估复合树脂残留。
两组的去除时间无显著差异。口腔内扫描图像叠加显示，与标准白光相比，FIT组在面积（39.35±39.98mm对65.44±58.11mm，p = 0.0235）和体积（3.41±6.15mm对8.86±11.65mm，p = 0.0116）上的牙釉质损失显著减少，在面积（8.22±16.04mm对30.87±49.65mm，p = 0.0083）和体积（0.41±0.87mm对2.34±3.94mm，p = 0.0037）上的复合树脂残留也显著减少。虽然OCT扫描显示牙釉质损失无显著差异，但结果证明FIT组的复合树脂残留量显著少于标准光对照组（5.88±10.54对22.66，p = 0.0072）。
虽然FIT方法并未缩短正畸固定保持器的去除时间，但已证明其有助于保护牙釉质并减少复合树脂残留。
