Influence of Dental Composite Viscosity in Attachment Reproduction: An Experimental in Vitro Study.

attachments clear aligners composite resin detail reproduction orthodontics viscosity degree

Journal

Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 Dec 2019
Historique:
received: 09 10 2019
revised: 18 11 2019
accepted: 27 11 2019
entrez: 8 12 2019
pubmed: 8 12 2019
medline: 8 12 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Attachments are composite auxiliaries that are used during a clear aligner orthodontic therapy to achieve difficult tooth movements. Two important factors are the planned configuration and the actual position of these auxiliary elements to obtain the desired force system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of different composite materials in the correct reproduction of attachment shape and position. The materials that were considered in the study were a flowable resin, a dental restorative material, and an orthodontic composite. The attachments were created on three models of extracted teeth. Once the impressions were performed, 25 attachments of different shapes were added onto each virtual model to obtain the necessary templates to make the attachments. Each tested material was used to create a set of 25 attachments that were then scanned with an accuracy of 10μm. The resultant STL (stereolithography) files were superimposed onto the ones from the initial virtual plan, through Geomagic software, and the aligned scans were then compared while using a color map. The parameters that were calculated to make a comparison between the created attachments and the ideal ones were the maximum deviation in defect and in excess, the overflow, and the volume's difference. In addition to these measurements comparing the three above-mentioned groups, the difference in volume between all the ideal and realized samples were analyzed. To test for differences among the three groups, a one-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with a Bonferroni post-hoc test. The level of significance was set at No statistically significant results were found between the three groups regarding the maximum value in defect, the maximum value in excess, and the minimum value as control, while a statistically significant difference was found between the overflow of orthodontic resin when compared to the flowable composite. The three materials that were used in this study were appropriate for attachment fabrication. The fidelity of attachment reproduction was similar when using the three different composites. The orthodontic composite showed more overflow when compared with the flowable one.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Attachments are composite auxiliaries that are used during a clear aligner orthodontic therapy to achieve difficult tooth movements. Two important factors are the planned configuration and the actual position of these auxiliary elements to obtain the desired force system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of different composite materials in the correct reproduction of attachment shape and position.
METHODS METHODS
The materials that were considered in the study were a flowable resin, a dental restorative material, and an orthodontic composite. The attachments were created on three models of extracted teeth. Once the impressions were performed, 25 attachments of different shapes were added onto each virtual model to obtain the necessary templates to make the attachments. Each tested material was used to create a set of 25 attachments that were then scanned with an accuracy of 10μm. The resultant STL (stereolithography) files were superimposed onto the ones from the initial virtual plan, through Geomagic software, and the aligned scans were then compared while using a color map. The parameters that were calculated to make a comparison between the created attachments and the ideal ones were the maximum deviation in defect and in excess, the overflow, and the volume's difference. In addition to these measurements comparing the three above-mentioned groups, the difference in volume between all the ideal and realized samples were analyzed. To test for differences among the three groups, a one-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with a Bonferroni post-hoc test. The level of significance was set at
RESULTS RESULTS
No statistically significant results were found between the three groups regarding the maximum value in defect, the maximum value in excess, and the minimum value as control, while a statistically significant difference was found between the overflow of orthodontic resin when compared to the flowable composite.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The three materials that were used in this study were appropriate for attachment fabrication. The fidelity of attachment reproduction was similar when using the three different composites. The orthodontic composite showed more overflow when compared with the flowable one.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31810298
pii: ma12234001
doi: 10.3390/ma12234001
pmc: PMC6926517
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 19;7(1):5838
pubmed: 28724930
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Jul;156(1):5-6
pubmed: 31256837
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019 Jul 1;20(7):822-827
pubmed: 31597802
Prog Orthod. 2019 Sep 9;20(1):36
pubmed: 31495908
Angle Orthod. 2015 May;85(3):454-60
pubmed: 25181252
J Healthc Eng. 2019 Aug 7;2019:9687127
pubmed: 31485303
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017 Aug;20(3):127-133
pubmed: 28547915
Aust Dent J. 2017 Mar;62 Suppl 1:58-62
pubmed: 28297094
J Clin Orthod. 2008 Oct;42(10):594
pubmed: 19075376
J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 May;129(5):567-77
pubmed: 9601169
J Orthod. 2003 Dec;30(4):348-52
pubmed: 14634176
Angle Orthod. 2015 Nov;85(6):934-40
pubmed: 26516708
Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):29-38
pubmed: 21093034
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Nov 29;2018:9341821
pubmed: 30627583
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018 Sep-Oct;11(5):430-434
pubmed: 30787558
J Orofac Orthop. 2019 Mar;80(2):79-87
pubmed: 30673806
J Clin Orthod. 2016 Mar;50(3):170-6
pubmed: 27117736
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:315023
pubmed: 23984339
Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2017 Aug;30(2):90-95
pubmed: 29248944
J Clin Orthod. 2016 Jun;50(6):341-7
pubmed: 27475935
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Apr;34(2):158-63
pubmed: 21447784
J Esthet Dent. 2000;12(4):216-26
pubmed: 11323865
J Orthod. 2016 Mar;43(1):68-76
pubmed: 25939782
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Mar;155(3):339-346
pubmed: 30826036

Auteurs

Vincenzo D'Antò (V)

Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Dentistry, University of Naples Federico II, 80138 Naples, Italy.

Simone Muraglie (S)

Dental Institute, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 00195 Rome, Italy.

Beatrice Castellano (B)

Dental Institute, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 00195 Rome, Italy.

Ettore Candida (E)

Dental Institute, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 00195 Rome, Italy.

Maria Francesca Sfondrini (MF)

Unit of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry - Section of Dentistry - Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.

Andrea Scribante (A)

Unit of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry - Section of Dentistry - Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.

Cristina Grippaudo (C)

Head and Neck Department, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCCS, Dental Institute, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, 00195 Rome, Italy.

Classifications MeSH