Evaluation of the Loss of Strength, Resistance, and Elasticity in the Different Types of Intraoral Orthodontic Elastics (IOE): A Systematic Review of the Literature of In Vitro Studies.
force
in vitro
intraoral orthodontic elastics
latex and synthetic elastics
loss of strength
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Oct 2023
14 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
08
09
2023
revised:
01
10
2023
accepted:
04
10
2023
medline:
27
10
2023
pubmed:
27
10
2023
entrez:
27
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Intraoral orthodontic elastics (IOE), typically referred to as rubber bands, are important tools for correcting malocclusion, and they are classified into latex and synthetic (elastomeric-based) elastics. They have different strengths and sizes, depending on their intended use, that provide clinicians with the ability to correct both anteroposterior and vertical discrepancies. Clinical use, together with saliva, alters the physical characteristics of both latex and synthetic elastics, causing declines in strength over time. The aim of the study was to assess, through a systematic review of in vitro studies, the properties of intraoral elastics. The primary goal was to evaluate how IOEs behave in terms of tension strength and duration. The secondary goal was to investigate the force loss during the first hours of wear. The tertiary goal was to assess how these forces decayed. The following electronic databases were searched from December 2020 to April 2021: Medline Full Text, PubMed, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Science Direct, and Literature Review. Out of 8505 initial articles, 10 were selected for the systematic review. The force-degradation property was found in all types of IOEs. The loss of strength was directly proportional to time, with the highest value during the first 3 h after extension, regardless of the elastic band size and manufacturer. The forces generated by the latex bands were higher than in those of the elastomeric-based elastics, but they did not consistently correspond to the loads specified by the manufacturers. The retention forces in the latex IOEs were significantly higher than those in the nonlatex bands, suggesting that elastomeric-based bands need to be changed more frequently and at regular intervals throughout a 24 h period. This systematic review indicates that intraoral orthodontic elastics have the greatest loss of force during the first 3 h, that latex rubber bands have the highest strength during the first hour, that the forces generated are not always consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, and that nonlatex (elastomeric-based) IOEs need to be changed frequently and regularly during a 24-h cycle.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Intraoral orthodontic elastics (IOE), typically referred to as rubber bands, are important tools for correcting malocclusion, and they are classified into latex and synthetic (elastomeric-based) elastics. They have different strengths and sizes, depending on their intended use, that provide clinicians with the ability to correct both anteroposterior and vertical discrepancies. Clinical use, together with saliva, alters the physical characteristics of both latex and synthetic elastics, causing declines in strength over time.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to assess, through a systematic review of in vitro studies, the properties of intraoral elastics. The primary goal was to evaluate how IOEs behave in terms of tension strength and duration. The secondary goal was to investigate the force loss during the first hours of wear. The tertiary goal was to assess how these forces decayed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched from December 2020 to April 2021: Medline Full Text, PubMed, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Science Direct, and Literature Review. Out of 8505 initial articles, 10 were selected for the systematic review.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The force-degradation property was found in all types of IOEs. The loss of strength was directly proportional to time, with the highest value during the first 3 h after extension, regardless of the elastic band size and manufacturer. The forces generated by the latex bands were higher than in those of the elastomeric-based elastics, but they did not consistently correspond to the loads specified by the manufacturers. The retention forces in the latex IOEs were significantly higher than those in the nonlatex bands, suggesting that elastomeric-based bands need to be changed more frequently and at regular intervals throughout a 24 h period.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review indicates that intraoral orthodontic elastics have the greatest loss of force during the first 3 h, that latex rubber bands have the highest strength during the first hour, that the forces generated are not always consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, and that nonlatex (elastomeric-based) IOEs need to be changed frequently and regularly during a 24-h cycle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37888106
pii: jpm13101495
doi: 10.3390/jpm13101495
pmc: PMC10608549
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2014 Jul;15(2 Suppl):184-6
pubmed: 25101498
Int J Dent. 2022 Apr 29;2022:3557317
pubmed: 35531573
Angle Orthod. 2007 Jul;77(4):688-93
pubmed: 17605476
Children (Basel). 2022 Jul 08;9(7):
pubmed: 35883998
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Mar;151(3):507-512
pubmed: 28257735
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Apr 18;19(4):
pubmed: 29670035
J Orthod Sci. 2017 Oct-Dec;6(4):136-140
pubmed: 29119094
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Angle Orthod. 2011 Sep;81(5):812-9
pubmed: 21615209
J Int Oral Health. 2014 Apr;6(2):96-105
pubmed: 24876709
BMJ. 2008 May 10;336(7652):1049-51
pubmed: 18467413
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Mar;157(3):313-319
pubmed: 32115109
Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1944-1945;42:22-45
pubmed: 21024940
Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):475-9
pubmed: 16637730
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 Sep;118(3):280-7
pubmed: 10982928
J Dent (Tehran). 2014 Jan;11(1):10-6
pubmed: 24910671
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Apr;34(2):202-7
pubmed: 21239396
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Oct;124(4):379-86
pubmed: 14560267
J Orofac Orthop. 2022 Sep;83(5):318-324
pubmed: 34185101