BACKGROUND: Failure of orthodontic bracket bonds is a common occurrence during orthodontic treatment. This study investigated the impact of Er: YAG laser-based removal of adhesive from the bases of metal and ceramic brackets for re-bonding.
METHODS: A total of 168 extracted premolars were collected from patients. 84 metal brackets were used to be bonded on the buccal surface of the premolars in Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, while 84 ceramic brackets were applied in Groups I, II, III and IV. Group 1/I represented the initial bonding group, with Group 2/II being the re-bonding group with new brackets, while Groups 3/III and 4/ IV received recycled brackets treated by Er: YAG laser or flaming respectively. Both the first and second de-bonding were performed in all samples using a universal testing machine to determine the shear bond strength (SBS). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated using a stereo-microscope. The new and the treated bracket bases were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Differences in initial bonding and re-bonding ability were analyzed through one-way ANOVAs, and differences in ARI were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test.
RESULTS: Greater amounts of adhesive residue were observed on ceramic brackets treated by laser. The SBS values for recycled metal brackets in Group 3 (26.13 MPa) were comparable to Group 1 (23.62 MPa) whereas they differed significantly from Group 4 (12.54 MPa). No significant differences in these values were observed when comparing the 4 groups with ceramic brackets. ARI score in Group 4 (2-3 points) differed significantly from the three other groups (P < 0.05). For Group I, II, III and IV, similar ARI scores were observed (P > 0.05). SEM analysis didn\'t show apparent damage of bracket bases consisting of either metal or ceramic material treated by Er: YAG laser.
CONCLUSIONS: Er: YAG laser treatment was superior to flame treatment as a means of removing adhesive without damaging the brackets. SBS values and ARI scores following Er: YAG laser treatment were similar to those for new brackets, offering further support for Er: YAG laser treatment as a viable means of recycling debonded brackets.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to explore the effects of removable aligners and fixed appliances on the supragingival bacterial communities in adult female patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Supragingival plaque samples from 48 female individuals underwent microbiome analysis (16S rRNA gene sequencing) using PacBio Sequel sequencing. The study included 13 adults without orthodontic treatment needs as the control group (Group C), and 35 patients with comparable initial orthodontic conditions who received treatment at a university clinic in Beijing, China. The treatment involved either traditional fixed brackets (Group B, n = 17) or Invisalign® aligners (Group AT, n = 18). Bioinformatics methods were used for data analysis.
UNASSIGNED: From the 48 plaque samples, a total of 334,961 valid reads were obtained, averaging 6,978 sequences per sample. The 16S rDNA sequences were classified into 25,727 amplicon sequence variants (ASVs). Significant variances in alpha and beta diversity among the groups were noted. Group B microbiome exhibited an increased presence of Gram-negative bacteria. At the phylum level, Actinobacteriota was significantly more prevalent in Group C samples, while Bacteroidota was enriched in Group B samples. Family-level relative abundance analysis showed a notable increase in Saccharibacteria (formerly TM7) and Prevotellaceae in Group B. Genus-level analysis revealed a significant rise in Lautropia in Group AT. Fixed orthodontic appliances were linked to oral microbiome changes, notably an enhanced relative abundance of anaerobes, including periodontal pathogens.
UNASSIGNED: The observation points to the impact of orthodontic appliance on the oral microbial community, highlighting the difference between traditional braces (Group B) and clear aligners (Group AT)in terms of the predominance of anaerobic and gram negative bacteria. This emphasizes the importance of considering the microbiological effects when choosing orthodontic appliance and underscores the need for tailored oral hygiene practices for individuals undergoing these treatments. This research might provide insights that could assist in the development of innovative cleaning techniques and antibacterial materials.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of fence tray matching care (FTMC) in bracket bonding by measuring excess adhesive, as well as linear and angular deviations, and by comparing it with the half-wrapped tray (HWT).
METHODS: An intraoral scanner was used to acquire data on the maxillary dental arch of a patient with periodontitis.Furthermore, 20 maxillary dental arch models were 3D printed. Using 3Shape, PlastyCAD software, and 3D printing technology, 10 FTMC (method I) and HWT (method II) were obtained. By preoperative preparation, intraoperative coordination, and postoperative measurement, the brackets were transferred from the trays to the 3D-printed maxillary dental arch models. Additionally, the bracket\'s excess adhesive as well as linear and angular deviations were measured, and the differences between the two methods were analyzed.
RESULTS: Excess adhesive was observed in both methods, with FTMC showing less adhesive (P< 0.001), with a statistical difference. Furthermore, HWT\'s vertical, tip and torque, which was significantly greater than FTMC (P< 0.05), with no statistical difference among other respects. The study data of incisors, canines, and premolars, showed that the premolars had more adhesive residue and were more likely to have linear and angular deviations.
CONCLUSIONS: The FTMC had higher bracket bonding effect in comparison to HWT, and the adhesive residue, linear and angular deviations are smaller. The fence tray offers an intuitive view of the precise bonding of the bracket, and can remove excess adhesive to prevent white spot lesions via care, providing a different bonding method for clinical applications.

The objective of this study was to synthesize arginine loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles (Arg@MSNs), develop a novel orthodontic adhesive using Arg@MSNs as modifiers, and investigate the adhesive performance, antibacterial activity, and biocompatibility.
Arg@MSNs were synthesized by immobilizing arginine into MSNs and characterized using transmission electron microscope (TEM), dynamic light scattering (DLS), and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FT-IR). Arg@MSNs were incorporated into Transbond XT adhesive with different mass fraction to form functional adhesives. The degree of conversion (DC), arginine release behavior, adhesive performance, antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans biofilm, and cytotoxicity were comprehensively evaluated.
TEM, DLS, and FT-IR characterizations confirmed the successful preparation of Arg@MSNs. The incorporation of Arg@MSNs did not significantly affect DC and exhibited clinically acceptable bonding strength. Compared to the commercial control, the Arg@MSNs modified adhesives greatly suppressed the metabolic activity and polysaccharide production while increased the biofilm pH values. The cell counting kit (CCK)-8 test indicated no cytotoxicity.
The novel orthodontic adhesive containing Arg@MSNs exhibited significantly enhanced antibacterial activities and inhibitory effects on acid production compared to the commercial adhesive without compromising their bonding strength or biocompatibility.
The novel orthodontic adhesive containing Arg@MSNs exhibits potential clinical benefits in preventing demineralization of enamel surfaces around or beneath orthodontic brackets due to its enhanced antibacterial activities and acid-producing inhibitory effects.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate enamel surface integrity and time consumed during residual cement removal after bracket debonding using different adhesive removal burs with and without a dental loupe.
METHODS: Sixty human-extracted premolars were collected, cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Teeth were randomly divided into three main groups (n = 20) based on the adhesive removal method: tungsten carbide system (TC), sof-lex discs system (SD), and diamond system (DB) groups. Then, each group was subdivided into two subgroups (naked eye and magnifying loupe subgroups). The brackets were bonded and then debonded after 24 h, and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed by different systems, and the final polishing was performed by Silicone OneGloss. The enamel surface roughness was evaluated before bracketing (T0), after residual cement removal (T1), and finally after polishing (T2) using surface Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine the Enamel Damage Index (EDI) score. The time consumed for adhesive removal was recorded in seconds.
RESULTS: The Kruskal Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in roughness values at T1 compared to T2 between subgroups (p < 0.001). When comparing EDI at T1 and T2, the Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed statistically significant differences in all subgroups. The pairwise comparisons revealed that EDI scores showed a statistically significant difference at T1 and T2 between DB vs. TC and SD (p = 0.015) but not between TC vs. SD (p = 1.000), indicating the highest roughness value observed in the DB group. The time for cement removal was significantly shorter in the magnifying loupe group than in the naked eye group and was shortest with the TC group, whereas the time was the longest with the DB group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: All three systems were clinically satisfactory for residual orthodontic adhesive removal. However, TC system produced the lowest enamel roughness, while the DB system created the greatest. The polishing step created smoother surfaces regardless of the systems used for resin removal.

Initial arch wires are the first arch wires inserted into fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which are most efficient and which cause the least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is the third update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010.
To assess the effects of initial arch wires for the alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, in terms of the rate of tooth alignment, amount of root resorption accompanying tooth movement, and intensity of pain experienced by patients during the initial alignment stage of treatment.
We searched Cochrane Oral Health\'s Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two ongoing trials registries on 4 July 2022.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different initial arch wires used to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included people with full-arch fixed orthodontic appliances on the upper arch, lower arch, or both arches.
Two independent review authors were responsible for study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. Our main outcomes were alignment rate (movement of teeth in mm), root resorption, time to alignment, and intensity of pain measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes using random-effects models. We reported mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data, and alignment rate ratios with 95% CIs for time-to-event data. Two independent review authors assessed the certainty of evidence. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors.
We included 29 RCTs with 1915 participants (2581 arches) in this review. Studies were generally small (sample sizes ranged from 14 to 200 participants). Duration of follow-up varied between three days and six months. Eleven studies received funding, six received no funding, and 12 provided no information about funding sources. We judged eight studies at high risk of bias, nine at low risk, and 12 at unclear risk. We grouped the studies into six main comparisons. Multistrand stainless steel wires versus wires composed of other materials Six studies with 409 participants (545 arches) evaluated multistrand stainless steel (StSt) wires versus wires composed of other materials. We are very uncertain about the effect of multistrand StSt wires versus other wires on alignment rate (4 studies, 281 participants, 417 arches; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between multistrand StSt wires and other wires in terms of intensity of pain (MD -2.68 mm, 95% CI -6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants, 127 arches; low-certainty evidence). Conventional nickel-titanium wires versus superelastic nickel-titanium wires Four studies with 266 participants (274 arches) evaluated conventional nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires versus superelastic NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between the different wire types in terms of alignment rate (124 participants, 124 arches, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and intensity of pain (MD -0.29 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.52; 2 studies, 142 participants, 150 arches; low-certainty evidence). Conventional nickel-titanium wires versus thermoelastic copper-nickel-titanium wires Three studies with 210 participants (210 arches) evaluated conventional Ni-Ti versus thermoelastic copper-nickel-titanium (CuNiTi) wires. We are very uncertain about the effects of the different arch wires on alignment rate (1 study, 66 participants, 66 arches; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between conventional NiTi wires and thermoelastic CuNiTi wires in terms of time to alignment (alignment rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.50; 1 study, 60 participants, 60 arches; low-certainty evidence). Superelastic nickel-titanium wires versus thermoelastic nickel-titanium wires Twelve studies with 703 participants (936 arches) evaluated superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between superelastic NiTi wires and thermoelastic NiTi wires in alignment rate at four weeks (MD -0.28 mm, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.06; 5 studies, 183 participants, 183 arches; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of the different wires on root resorption (2 studies, 52 participants, 312 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Superelastic NiTi wires compared with thermoelastic NiTi wires may result in a slight increase in time to alignment (MD 0.5 months, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 1 study, 32 participants, 32 arches; low-certainty evidence) but are probably associated with a slight increase in intensity of pain (MD 6.96 mm, 95% CI 1.82 to 12.10; 3 studies, 94 participants, 138 arches, moderate-certainty evidence). Single-strand superelastic nickel-titanium wires versus coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium wires Three studies with 104 participants (104 arches) evaluated single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi wires. Use of single-strand superelastic NiTi wires compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi wires probably results in a slight reduction in alignment rate at four weeks (MD -2.64 mm, 95% CI -4.61 to -0.67; 2 studies, 64 participants, 64 arches, moderate-certainty evidence). Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Two studies with 149 participants (232 arches) compared different types of NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between different sizes of NiTi wires in terms of pain (low-certainty evidence).
Superelastic NiTi wires probably produce slightly more pain after one day than thermoelastic NiTi wires, and single-strand superelastic NiTi wires probably have a lower alignment rate over four weeks compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi wires. All other evidence on alignment rate, root resorption, time to alignment, and pain is of low or very low certainty in all comparisons. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material or size is superior to any other. The findings of this review are imprecise and unreliable; well-designed larger studies are needed to give better estimates of the benefits and harms of different arch wires. Orthodontists should exercise caution when interpreting the findings of this review and be prepared to adapt their treatment plans based on individual patient needs.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a tool for virtual orthodontic bracket removal based on deep learning algorithms for feature extraction from bonded teeth and to demonstrate its application in a bracket position assessment scenario.
METHODS: Our segmentation network for virtual bracket removal was trained using dataset A, containing 978 bonded teeth, 20 original teeth, and 20 brackets generated by scanners. The accuracy and segmentation time of the network were tested by dataset B, which included an additional 118 bonded teeth without knowing the original tooth morphology. This tool was then applied for bracket position assessment. The clinical crown center, bracket center, and orientations of separated teeth and brackets were extracted for analyzing the linear distribution and angular deviation of bonded brackets.
RESULTS: This tool performed virtual bracket removal in 2.9 ms per tooth with accuracies of 98.93% and 97.42% (P < 0.01) in datasets A and B, respectively. The tooth surface and bracket characteristics were extracted and used to evaluate the results of manually bonded brackets by 49 orthodontists. Personal preferences for bracket angulation and bracket distribution were displayed graphically and tabularly.
CONCLUSIONS: The tool\'s efficiency and precision are satisfactory, and it can be operated without original tooth data. It can be used to display the bonding deviation in the bracket position assessment scenario.
CONCLUSIONS: With the aid of this tool, unnecessary bracket removal can be avoided when evaluating bracket positions and modifying treatment plans. It has the potential to produce retainers and orthodontic devices prior to tooth debonding.

The article reviewed novel orthodontic devices and materials with bioactive capacities in recent years and elaborated on their properties, aiming to provide guidance and reference for future scientific research and clinical applications.
Researches on remineralization, protein repellent, antimicrobial activity and multifunctional novel bioactive orthodontic devices and materials were included. The search of articles was carried out in Web of Science, PubMed, Medline and Scopus.
The new generation of orthodontic devices and materials with bioactive capacities has broad application prospects. However, most of the current studies are limited to in vitro studies and cannot explore the true effects of various bioactive devices and materials applied in oral environments. More research, especially in vivo researches, is needed to assist in clinical application.
Enamel demineralization (ED) is a common complication in orthodontic treatments. Prolonged ED can lead to dental caries, impacting both the aesthetics and health of teeth. It is of great significance to develop antibacterial orthodontic devices and materials that can inhibit bacterial accumulation and prevent ED. However, materials with only preventive effect may fall short of addressing actual needs. Hence, the development of novel bioactive orthodontic materials with remineralizing abilities is imperative. The article reviewed the recent advancements in bioactive orthodontic devices and materials, offering guidance and serving as a reference for future scientific research and clinical applications.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of chewing gum on orthodontic pain and to determine the rate of bracket breakage associated with fixed orthodontic appliances.
METHODS: This review and its reporting were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines. Six electronic databases were searched up to March 16, 2023, to identify relevant studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, grey literature resources were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool 2 was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan, and sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis were performed using STATA software. GRADE tool was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies with 2116 participants were ultimately included in this review, and 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the blank group, chewing gum had a significant pain relieving effect at all times after fixation of the initial archwire (P ≤ 0.05). No significant difference was found between the chewing gum group and the analgesics group at any timepoints (P > 0.05). Only four studies evaluated the rate of bracket breakage and revealed that chewing gum did not increase the rate of bracket breakage. The sensitivity analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the pooled outcomes after the included studies were removed one at times, and Egger analysis revealed no significant publication bias in included studies (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Chewing gum is a non-invasive, low-cost and convenient method that has a significant effect on relieving orthodontic pain and has no effect on the rate of bracket breakage. Therefore, chewing gum can be recommended as a suitable substitute for analgesics to reduce orthodontic pain.