Do Applicator Residues Remain on the Cavity Surface During the Adhesive Application Process?

Abstract Objectives: This in vitro study aimed to examine two different application brushes used to apply an adhesive to dentin surfaces using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for the possible presence of brush residues. Materials and Methods: Class I cavities with a width of 2 mm and a depth of 3 mm were prepared in 30 human molars using diamond and steel burs under water cooling. These teeth were then divided into two groups of 15 teeth each. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, a universal bonding agent (Scotch Bond Universal) was applied to one group using a microbrush and to the other group using a bristle brush applicator. The bonding agent was then polymerized for 20 s. The prepared cavities were coated with gold-palladium for SEM analysis and photographed at different magnifications. Results: The SEM analysis showed that only the samples from the microbrush group had fibre residues on the adhesive surface, while the samples from the bristle brush group were free of residues. Conclusions: The microbrush used left residues on the adhesive-applied surfaces, while no residues were found on the bristle brush-applied surfaces. The microfibres or bristles at the tip of the brush, which help to apply the adhesive, and the condition of their connection to the brush are important factors in terms of residue on the application surface. Clinical Significance: The possibility that microbrush fibres may interfere with dental adhesion underscores the need for further research on long-term effects, alternative application methods and careful selection of applicators.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Malaysian Dental Journal
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/mdj.mdj_6_24
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do Applicator Residues Remain on the Cavity Surface During the Adhesive Application Process?

Uğur Erdemir, Benin Dikmen, Ahmed Alshawi, Fadimeana Lal
4 links
Malaysian Dental Journal
Dental materials and restorations
article

Do Applicator Residues Remain on the Cavity Surface During the Adhesive Application Process?

Uğur Erdemir, Benin Dikmen, Ahmed Alshawi, Fadimeana Lal
article en

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: This in vitro study aimed to examine two different application brushes used to apply an adhesive to dentin surfaces using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for the possible presence of brush residues. Materials and Methods: Class I cavities with a width of 2 mm and a depth of 3 mm were prepared in 30 human molars using diamond and steel burs under water cooling. These teeth were then divided into two groups of 15 teeth each. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, a universal bonding agent (Scotch Bond Universal) was applied to one group using a microbrush and to the other group using a bristle brush applicator. The bonding agent was then polymerized for 20 s. The prepared cavities were coated with gold-palladium for SEM analysis and photographed at different magnifications. Results: The SEM analysis showed that only the samples from the microbrush group had fibre residues on the adhesive surface, while the samples from the bristle brush group were free of residues. Conclusions: The microbrush used left residues on the adhesive-applied surfaces, while no residues were found on the bristle brush-applied surfaces. The microfibres or bristles at the tip of the brush, which help to apply the adhesive, and the condition of their connection to the brush are important factors in terms of residue on the application surface. Clinical Significance: The possibility that microbrush fibres may interfere with dental adhesion underscores the need for further research on long-term effects, alternative application methods and careful selection of applicators.

Malaysian Dental JournalVol. 48(1)
Istanbul Medipol University (TR), Istanbul University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 84%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.