Long-term failure rate of brackets bonded with plasma and high-intensity light-emitting diode curing lights: A clinical assessment

11Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To comparatively assess the long-term failure rate of brackets bonded with a plasma or a high-intensity light-emitting diode (LED) curing light. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients with complete permanent dentitions with similar treatment planning and mechanotherapy were selected for the study. Brackets were bonded according to a split-mouth design with the 3M Ortholite Plasma or the high-power Satelec mini LED Ortho curing light. Irradiation with the two curing lights was performed for 9 seconds at an alternate quadrant sequence so that the bonded brackets cured with either light were equally distributed on the maxillary and mandibular right and left quadrants. First-time bracket failures were recorded for a mean period of 15 months (range 13-18 months) and the results were analyzed with the chi-square test and binary logistic regression. Results: The failure rate for brackets was 2.8% for the plasma light and 6.7% for the LED light source. Although significantly more failures were found for the mandibular arch, no difference was identified in failure rate between anterior and posterior teeth. Conclusions: High-intensity LED curing lights present a 2.5 times higher failure rate relative to plasma lamps for nominally identical irradiation time. Mandibular teeth show almost 150% higher failure incidence compared with maxillary teeth. No effect from the arch side (right vs left) and location (anterior vs posterior) was identified in this study. © 2007 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pandis, N., Strigou, S., & Eliades, T. (2007). Long-term failure rate of brackets bonded with plasma and high-intensity light-emitting diode curing lights: A clinical assessment. Angle Orthodontist, 77(4), 707–710. https://doi.org/10.2319/062106-253

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free