AN IN VITRO COMPARISON OF ULTRAVIOLET VERSUS WHITE LIGHT IN THE DETECTION OF ADHESIVE REMNANTS DURING ORTHODONTIC DEBONDING

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare ultraviolet (UV) illumination with traditional white light for locating fluorescent-tagged adhesive residues during orthodontic debonding, and to draw conclusions about whether kind of lighting is more successful and efficient. Materials and Methods: The extracted human premolars were bonded to orthodontic brackets using one of two fluorescent bonding resins (Pad Lock, Reliance Orthodontics, Itasca, Ill.;). Opal Bond MV, Opal Orthodontics, South Jordan, Utah; $40 a pop).” After debonding, the operatory light was used to illuminate most of the teeth in each paste bundle (n = 20), while an ultraviolet (395 nm) light release diode (Drove) spotlight illuminated the remaining teeth. Cleaning one's teeth took a certain amount of time, which was recorded. The surface area of adhesive remains was determined by taking follow-up photographs with a dissecting microscope under UV light. The effectiveness of cement removal was also investigated using scanning electron microscopy. We used an ANOVA and a Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the two variables, time and adhesive residue. Results: Using a dissecting microscope, researchers determined that there were considerably less adhesive remains in the UV light group compared to the white light group (P .01). Opal Bond MV glue removed in much less time (P .01) when exposed to UV light as opposed to white light. Scanning electron microscopy analysis revealed invisible to UV light, minute adhesive residues (2 m). Conclusions: When it comes to spotting fluorescent adhesive during orthodontic debonding, ultraviolet light is both more effective and more efficient than white light. UV LED illumination is a useful tool for finding adhesives, despite its drawbacks.