• Users Online: 447
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 41-46

Antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system versus conventional one in reducing demineralization of the enamel around orthodontic brackets: A split-mouth study

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Dakahlia, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Eqbal Nasser Aqeel
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Dakahlia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/bijo.bijo_1_18

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the efficiency of an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive in the reduction of white-spot lesions (WSLs) around orthodontic brackets (in vivo) in comparison to the conventional adhesive systems. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on twenty patients, provided that they required the extraction of the maxillary first premolars as part of their orthodontic treatment plan. This involved only on the maxillary first bicuspids (n = 40) and the left maxillary first premolars represented the control side (n = 20) where the metal brackets (3M, Unitek™ Gemini) were bonded to that side using Transbond XT light cure adhesive (3M, Unitek). Meanwhile, the right side represented the experimental one (n = 20) and the brackets were bonded to them using Clearfil SE protect (Kuraray). After 3 months, both teeth were extracted and examined by both the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to assess the calcium and phosphorus atomic percentages were assessed in the area surrounding the bracket by and the scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the morphology and crystalline structure of the tooth surfaces. Results: A significant difference between the antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive and the conventional adhesive system in the prevention of the WSLs formation was evident in the study. Moreover, the difference in the enamel surface morphology was noted. Conclusions: Antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive can minimize demineralization around the metal brackets (in vivo) compared to the conventional one after a period of 3 months.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded139    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal