AUTHOR=Bourgi Rim , Klein Junior Celso Afonso , Rebelo Allram Laura , Gonçalves Heck Luciana , Hardan Louis , Cuevas-Suárez Carlos Enrique , Mesquita Chana , Coelho-de-Souza Fabio Herrmann , Kharouf Naji , Haikel Youssef 

TITLE=Bioengineering perspectives on adhesive delivery: performance analysis of dental microapplicators

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Dental Medicine

VOLUME=Volume 6 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/dental-medicine/articles/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1698820

DOI=10.3389/fdmed.2025.1698820

ISSN=2673-4915

ABSTRACT=BackgroundThe precise and consistent application of adhesive systems is essential for achieving reliable bonding in restorative dentistry. Microapplicators are commonly used for adhesive delivery; however, variations in their structural quality and performance may affect clinical outcomes.ObjectiveThis study evaluated four commercially available microapplicator brands—Angelus, FGM, KG Sorensen, and SDI—regarding the quality of their active tips (bristle configuration) and adhesive delivery capacity.MethodsA total of 160 microapplicators (40 per brand) were analyzed. Optical microscopy (15 per brand) assessed bristle integrity before and after use. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM; 10 per brand) evaluated surface morphology (five unused and five used applicators per brand). Adhesive release capacity (15 per brand) was determined by weighing each microapplicator before adhesive loading, after loading, and following application to a standardized cavity. Data was analyzed using One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).ResultsNew microapplicators from Angelus, KG Sorensen, and SDI displayed uniform bristle arrangements without visible gaps. After use, SDI and Angelus maintained superior bristle cohesion, whereas FGM showed the greatest deformation and sparse bristle distribution. Despite morphological differences, all brands delivered adhesive with comparable efficiency, exceeding 96% release.ConclusionsSDI microapplicators demonstrated the highest structural stability and resistance to deformation, followed by Angelus, KG Sorensen, and FGM. Although adhesive release capacity was consistent across all brands, differences in bristle quality may influence handling characteristics and clinical precision.