Diastema Closure Following Detection and Removal of Residual Resins After Orthodontic Treatment: Case Report with 1-year follow-up

Year 2025, Volume: 15 Issue: 3, 713 - 717, 30.09.2025

Bengü Doğu Kaya , Pınar Yılmaz Atalı , Deniz Meltem Sever , Dilek Tağtekin

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1721525

Abstract

This case report aimed to determine and remove the residual resins after debonding, to restore the upper lateral teeth with a single shade composite to evaluate with follow-ups. An 18-year-old female patient applied to our clinic with the complaint of the presence of diastemas. Following the sond marking technique, MDP (Smile Lite, Smile Line) and mobile phone (iPhone 11, Apple); DSLR camera (Nikon), macro lens and D-Light caries detection mode (GC) before and after the application of plaque staining gel (Tri Plaque ID, GC) to detect resin residues on tooth surfaces after bracket removal. The residual resins were removed with finishing and polishing discs (last 3 stages) (OptiDisc, Kerr). One week later, the selective-etch technique, universal adhesive (Gluma Bond Universal, Kulzer), and single shade composite (Charisma Diamond One, Kulzer) were used for diastema closure. The patient was called for follow-up at 3, 6, and 12-months evaluated FDI criteria. Residual resins were best determined by using a combination of plaque coloring agent and MDP since the composite used was not a fluorescent light-emitting material. For restorations, FDI 1 and 2 scores were observed in the esthetic, functional, and biological evaluations.

Keywords

bracket , cross polarizing filter , diastema closure , residual resin , plaque staining gel

Ethical Statement

Not applicable.

Supporting Institution

None.

Thanks

None.

References

• Comba A, Vergano E, Baldi A, Alovisi M, Pasqualini D, Castroflorio T, Stura I, Migliaretti G, Berutti E, Scotti N. 5-year retrospective evaluation of direct composite restorations in orthodontically treated patients. J Dent. 2021;104:103510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103510
• Sidhu SK, Ikeda T, Omata Y, Fujita M, Sano H. Change of color and translucency by light curing in resin composites. Oper Dent. 2006;31(5):598-603. https://doi.org/10.2341/05-109
• Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding: comparison of two different burs. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(6):1081-1088. https://doi.org/10.2319/012610-55.1
• Almudhi A, Aldeeri A, Aloraini AAA, Alomar AIM, Alqudairi MSM, Alzahrani OAA, Eldwakhly E, AlMugairin S. Comparison of enamel surface integrity after de-bracketing as affected by seven different orthodontic residual cement removal systems. Diagnostics. 2023;13(20):3284. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13203284
• Cesur E, Arslan C, Orhan AI, Bilecenoğlu B, Orhan K. Effect of different resin removal methods on enamel after metal and ceramic bracket debonding: An in vitro micro-computed tomography study. J Orofac Orthop. 2022;83(3):157-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00306-1
• Prasad AS, Sivakumar A. Smartphone vs DSLR dental photography among orthodontists. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2020;11(6):118-122. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14288904449530637776&hl=tr&as_sdt=0,5
• Hardan L. Mobile dental photography (MDP): A new era in dental documentation. Int Arab J Dent. (IAJD). 2017;8(3):115-118. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Hardan+L.+Mobile+dental+photography+%28MDP%29%3A+A+new+era+in+dental+documentation.+International+Arab+Journal+of+Dentistry+%28IAJD%29.+2017%3B8%283%29%3A115-8.&btnG=
• Lee J, Park H, Lee J, Seo H, Lee S. Study of bacteria associated with dental caries using a 3 tone disclosing agent. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2018;45(1):32-40. https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2018.45.1.32
• Blumer S, Kharouba J, Kats L, Schachter D, Azem H. Visual examination, fluorescence-aided caries excavation (face) technology, bitewing x-ray radiography in the detection of occlusal caries in first permanent molars in children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;45(3):152-157. https://doi.org/ 10.17796/1053-4625-45.3.2.
• Hickel R, Mesinger S, Opdam N, Loomans B, Frankenberger R, Cadenaro M, Burgess J, Peschke A, Heintze SD, Kühnisch J. Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(6):2573-2592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1
• Meshni AA, Fageeh HN, Arishi MH, Preethanath RS. Physical characteristics and bacterial adhesion of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing and conventional provisional restorative materials. J Biomater Tissue Eng. 2018;8(2):228-233. https://doi.org/10.1166/jbt.2018.1735
• Oweis Y, El-Hadad A, Mezour M, Abdallah M-N, Retrouvey J, El-Khoury R, Cerruti M, Tamimi F. Disclosing agent for resin composite based on adsorption surface treatment. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2021;4(9):7222-7233. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.1c00734
• Albertini P, Albertini E, Siciliani G, Lombardo L. Fluorescence‐aided composite removal during lingual bracket debonding. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020;32(7):634-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12618
• Thawaba AA, Albelasy NF, Elsherbini AM, Hafez AM. Comparison of enamel surface roughness after bracket debonding and adhesive resin removal using different burs with and without the aid of a magnifying loupe. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2022;23:1091-1099. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3432
• Ali AMM, Al-Assadi HZ, Nema TG, Al-Bazi SMA, Mohammed ZH. Surface roughness of nano-hybrid universal composite restorative materials after different finishing and polishing protocols. Nanotechnol Percept. 2024; 20(S3):148-158. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381917439_Surface_Roughness_of_Nano-Hybrid_Universal_Composite_Restorative_Materials_After_Different_Finishing_and_Polishing_Protocols