SEM characterization and ageing analysis on two generation of invisible aligners.
Ageing tests
Invisalign® aligner
Polymer
Scanning electron microscopy
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 06 2021
23 06 2021
Historique:
received:
18
11
2020
accepted:
11
06
2021
entrez:
24
6
2021
pubmed:
25
6
2021
medline:
29
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of the in vitro study is to investigate and compare the morphological features and the chemical stability in weight of two different polyurethane-based blends, Smart Track (LD30) and Exceed30 (EX30), used for orthodontic aligners manufacture before and after the oral usage. Twenty orthodontic aligners were randomly selected: 10 LD30 and 10 EX30, each group was divided in two subgroups, never used and intra-orally aged. By the employment of a Stereomicroscope, a section of 5 × 5 mm was cut from the buccal surface of the incisal region of each aligner. All samples were subjected to Scanning Electron Microscopy and Ageing tests in different solutions to simulate the hostility of the oral environment. The statistical method used was t-test. At SEM images, LD30 appears more homogeneous in texture respect to EX30. However, after clinical usage, both materials show significant structural alterations: findings have been supported by higher magnifications at SEM, by which it is clearly to observe many superficial cracks cross through the polymer structures of LD30U, absent in never used samples. LD30U surface becomes also smoother due to the disappearance of most of the conglomerates, but at the same time also rougher while EX30U shows a greater irregularity and porosity in which large and deep cracks are also highlighted. Although these changes occur persistently, in the aging tests no significant weight loss from both materials has been found, confirming the initial hypothesis of a good chemical stability and safety of both polyurethane mixtures even in conditions of severe hostility. LD30 is the expression of the technological evolution of EX30, this is made evident above all by its morphological architecture, more homogeneous and defined but also by the chemical stability that can be appreciated even in evident critic situations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the in vitro study is to investigate and compare the morphological features and the chemical stability in weight of two different polyurethane-based blends, Smart Track (LD30) and Exceed30 (EX30), used for orthodontic aligners manufacture before and after the oral usage.
METHODS
Twenty orthodontic aligners were randomly selected: 10 LD30 and 10 EX30, each group was divided in two subgroups, never used and intra-orally aged. By the employment of a Stereomicroscope, a section of 5 × 5 mm was cut from the buccal surface of the incisal region of each aligner. All samples were subjected to Scanning Electron Microscopy and Ageing tests in different solutions to simulate the hostility of the oral environment. The statistical method used was t-test.
RESULTS
At SEM images, LD30 appears more homogeneous in texture respect to EX30. However, after clinical usage, both materials show significant structural alterations: findings have been supported by higher magnifications at SEM, by which it is clearly to observe many superficial cracks cross through the polymer structures of LD30U, absent in never used samples. LD30U surface becomes also smoother due to the disappearance of most of the conglomerates, but at the same time also rougher while EX30U shows a greater irregularity and porosity in which large and deep cracks are also highlighted. Although these changes occur persistently, in the aging tests no significant weight loss from both materials has been found, confirming the initial hypothesis of a good chemical stability and safety of both polyurethane mixtures even in conditions of severe hostility.
CONCLUSION
LD30 is the expression of the technological evolution of EX30, this is made evident above all by its morphological architecture, more homogeneous and defined but also by the chemical stability that can be appreciated even in evident critic situations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34162371
doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01676-z
pii: 10.1186/s12903-021-01676-z
pmc: PMC8223277
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
316Références
Int J Oral Sci. 2016 Dec 16;8(4):246-253
pubmed: 27660048
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Nov;124(5):496-501
pubmed: 14614415
Angle Orthod. 2018 Sep;88(5):596-601
pubmed: 29911907
Angle Orthod. 2013 May;83(3):476-83
pubmed: 23035832
J Clin Orthod. 1993 Jan;27(1):37-45
pubmed: 8478438
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Jun;145(6):728-36
pubmed: 24880843
J Orofac Orthop. 2019 Mar;80(2):79-87
pubmed: 30673806
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Mar;135(3):276.e1-12; discussion 276-7
pubmed: 19268820
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Feb;133(2):228-34; quiz 328.e1
pubmed: 18249289
Dent Mater J. 2011;30(6):954-9
pubmed: 22123023
J Orofac Orthop. 2016 Nov;77(6):432-438
pubmed: 27778051
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jan;135(1):27-35
pubmed: 19121497
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Mar;131(3):302.e1-9
pubmed: 17346581
Dent Mater J. 2018 Sep 30;37(5):835-842
pubmed: 29998941
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Dec;138(6):698.e1-12; discussion 698-9
pubmed: 21130314
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jun 11;14:68
pubmed: 24923279
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Dec;126(6):725-8
pubmed: 15592222