Influence of wire extension and type on splint rigidity - evaluation by a dynamic and a static measuring method

Abstract

WCS1 is flexible compared with the more rigid WCS2. The wire length influences the rigidity. To ensure adequate fixation and reduce the risk of enamel damage during splint removal, the splint should include only one 'uninjured' tooth bilaterally.

Rigidity evaluation of quartz‐fiber splints compared with wire‐composite splints

“…Previous studies evaluated splint rigidity in vitro using an artificial model (1,13,19). The advantages of artificial models are continuous availability, low to moderate inter-individual variability, and the ability to simulate physiologic and increased tooth mobility.…”

“…The advantages of artificial models are continuous availability, low to moderate inter-individual variability, and the ability to simulate physiologic and increased tooth mobility. This problem was solved by the development of a model with artificial teeth consisting of bovine tooth facets (1,13,19). This problem was solved by the development of a model with artificial teeth consisting of bovine tooth facets (1,13,19).…”

“…In addition, the simulation PDL of the 'injured' teeth is made of silicon in the apical part and rubber foam in the middle and cervical part to mimic the clinical situation of a dislocated tooth with a Table 3. To reduce the influencing effect of initial tooth mobility, the relative splint effect was established (1,13,19) and used in this study. In contrast, the simulation PDL of the 'uninjured' teeth is entirely made of silicon to copy the elastic properties of an intact fiber apparatus (1).…”

“…Before inserting a splint, the middle part of the vestibular enamel surface of the tooth facets was etched for 15 s (Sealbond II Etching; RTD) and bonded (1,2,13,19). All measurements were consecutively repeated three times per tooth, in the same sequence (tooth 12, 11, 21, 22) ( Fig.…”

“…In addition, tooth mobility can be individually adjusted to simulate increased and physiologic mobility (1,13,19). The two most commonly used methods to evaluate splint rigidity in vitro are the dynamic Periotest Ò method (1-4, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19) and a static measuring technique using universal testing machines (13,15,16,19,20,27). The two most commonly used methods to evaluate splint rigidity in vitro are the dynamic Periotest Ò method (1-4, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19) and a static measuring technique using universal testing machines (13,15,16,19,20,27).…”