Bond Strength and Deflection of Four Types of Bonded Lingual Retainers

Golshah, Amin; Feyli, Shirin Asadian

doi:10.1155/2022/1707520

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A lingual retainer (LR) can be used during the retention period to maintain the ideal alignment of teeth after orthodontic treatment and prevent relapse [4]. However, LRs must both prevent relapse and allow physiological tooth movements [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Fixed Lingual Retainers on Tooth Mobility: Prospective Clinical Study

KÜÇÜK,

GÜLER,

ARPAĞ

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare the effect of different fixed lingual retainers (LRs) on tooth mobility after orthodontic treatment using a Periotest® device. Materials and methods: A total of 82 patients (43 females and 39 males; mean age = 18.61 ± 3.71 years) with no missing teeth in the lower inter-canine region were treated with fixed orthodontic mechanics. At the completion of the orthodontic treatment, each patient was fitted with either Ortho FlexTech (Reliance; Group I), dead soft 8-braided (Bond-A-Braid, Reliance; Group II), or 5-stranded (PentaOne, Masel; Group III) LR wire. A control group consisting of people with a healthy periodontal condition and no bone loss was included (Control; Group C). The mobility of the lower anterior teeth on the right and left sides was measured using a Periotest® device before (T0), immediately after (T1), and 10 months after (T2) the application of the LR. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc LSD, repeated ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test, and Pearson χ2 tests. Results: Tooth mobility was significantly lower at T1 and T2 compared to that at T0 (P < 0.05); however, there were no differences in the mobility at T1 and T2 in all study groups (P > 0.05). When the mobility measurements taken at the different times were compared, there was no statistical difference between the groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions: In all the study groups, tooth mobility decreased immediately after LR application and did not change during the 10-month follow-up. There were no significant differences in tooth mobility among the study groups. Clinical relevance: Any of the studied types of retainer wires could be used by clinicians. Clinical Trial Number: NCT06284499

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Fixed Lingual Retainers on Tooth Mobility: Prospective Clinical Study

KÜÇÜK,

GÜLER,

ARPAĞ

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Novel 3‐Dimensional Printed Nanoceramic Hybrid Resin Fixed Lingual Retainer: Characterization and Mechanical Tests

Alnuaimy,

Alhuwaizi

2024

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: An innovative retention protocol was developed to create a new 3D‐printed fixed retainer employing SprintRay OnX nanoceramic hybrid resin. The feasibility and usability of the retainer were subsequently evaluated.Methods: Identification and characterization of SprintRay OnX was done using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X‐ray (SEM‐EDX), field emission scanning electron microscope (FE‐SEM), X‐ray diffraction (XRD), and flexural strength. Load–deflection and pull‐out tests were conducted on the 3D‐printed straight wires, with three distinct cross‐sectional geometries: round (1 mm), oval (1 mm × 1.5 mm) and semielliptical (1 mm × 1.5 mm). Twisted G&H and coaxial Respond stainless steel multistrand retainers were used for comparison. In the load–deflection test, a three‐point bending test (3PBT) was employed. For the pull‐out test, the retainer wire was inserted into the composite, which was placed in a centrally located hole of an acrylic block; the retainer wire was subjected to a tensile force along its long axis.Results: Characteristic bands close to those of PMMA were observed in the FTIR spectra. SEM‐EDX and XRD revealed a crystalline material with homogeneously distributed Yb element signals (19.4%). On FE‐SEM micrographs, small clumps were displayed on smooth surfaces. The flexural strength and the flexural modulus were, respectively, 142.48 MPa and 7.842 GPa. All groups of 3D‐printed wires exhibited significantly higher load–deflection levels than the multistrand wires (MSWs). Concerning pull‐out forces, they fell in between twisted G&H (96 N) and coaxial Respond (48.09 N) retainer wires. The 3D‐printed wires fractured cohesively without detachment from the adhesive, suggesting that the chemical bond was adequate for satisfactory wire integration, yet the wire’s strength was compromised. Concerning the cross‐sectional geometry, the load–deflection and the pull‐out forces of 3D‐printed oval and semielliptical wires were significantly higher than that of 3D‐printed round wires, which was attributed to the larger cross‐sections of the wires.Conclusion: Oval and semielliptical 3D‐printed wires offered favorable features as lingual retainers.

show abstract

Assessment of the Impact of Adhesive and Wires Types on the Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed Lingual Retainers Used in Orthodontics: An In Vitro Study

Alhakim,

Alhuwaizi

2023

Dental Hypotheses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: We aimed to assess the impact of adhesive and wires types on the tensile bond strength of fixed lingual retainers. Methods: A total of 160 intact bovine teeth were collected, cleaned, stored in 25% sodium hypochlorite, and randomly assigned to two groups based on the adhesive type: a two-step adhesive and a one-step adhesive. Each group was further divided into four subgroups based on the type of lingual retainer wire, which included (A) 8-strand braided stainless steel wire, (B) three-strand titanium retainer wire, (C) stainless steel chain, and (D) fiber-reinforced retainer. A tensile bond strength test was conducted using a universal testing machine at a controlled speed of 10 mm/min. Result: The 8-strand braided stainless steel wire and stainless steel chain bonded by one-step self-priming adhesive showed significantly higher tensile bond strength (P < 0.001). The adhesive wire significantly affected the tensile bond strength (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that stainless steel wire and chain bonded by one-step self-priming adhesive showed higher tensile bond strength.

show abstract

Bond Strength and Deflection of Four Types of Bonded Lingual Retainers

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

Effect of Different Fixed Lingual Retainers on Tooth Mobility: Prospective Clinical Study

Effect of Different Fixed Lingual Retainers on Tooth Mobility: Prospective Clinical Study

A Novel 3‐Dimensional Printed Nanoceramic Hybrid Resin Fixed Lingual Retainer: Characterization and Mechanical Tests

Assessment of the Impact of Adhesive and Wires Types on the Tensile Bond Strength of Fixed Lingual Retainers Used in Orthodontics: An In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About