Evaluation of the Clinical Variables Affecting Attachment Reproduction Accuracy during Clear Aligner Therapy.
attachment curing
attachment materials
attachment shape
attachment template
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Oct 2023
23 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
05
09
2023
revised:
09
10
2023
accepted:
17
10
2023
medline:
28
10
2023
pubmed:
28
10
2023
entrez:
28
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate some of the clinical variables that influence the accuracy of reproducing the planned attachment shape. The following clinical variables were considered: the template material, type of composite, and pressure application on the template during attachment curing. In this study, the evaluated materials for the thermoplastic transfer template construction are Erkolen 0.8 (polyethylene: PE) and Erkodur 0.8 (polyethylene terephthalate glycol-PET-G), and two types of composite resins: Enaflow (light-curing low-viscosity composite resin) and Enamel plus dentina HRI (light-curing high-viscosity composite resin). Two different light-curing lamps were used: Valo cordless color with no pressure and push light pressure (SCS). The 26 models included in the study were imported into the 3 Shape Ortho System 2022 (ver. 85.0.20 3 Shape, Denmark), and attachments were virtually placed on the dental elements of the first premolar and on both sides of the first upper molars. The accuracy of the attachment reproduction was evaluated through linear and angular evaluations against the reference model (MCAD). Three physical models were obtained: model A (MA), which was printed with attachments; model B (MB) with attachments made with a PE template; and model C (MC) with attachments made with a PET-G template. The results showed statistically significant differences ( In light of the obtained data, using a PET-G template is recommended. The pressure application during composite curing reduces the reproduction accuracy with a low-viscosity composite.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to evaluate some of the clinical variables that influence the accuracy of reproducing the planned attachment shape. The following clinical variables were considered: the template material, type of composite, and pressure application on the template during attachment curing.
METHODS
METHODS
In this study, the evaluated materials for the thermoplastic transfer template construction are Erkolen 0.8 (polyethylene: PE) and Erkodur 0.8 (polyethylene terephthalate glycol-PET-G), and two types of composite resins: Enaflow (light-curing low-viscosity composite resin) and Enamel plus dentina HRI (light-curing high-viscosity composite resin). Two different light-curing lamps were used: Valo cordless color with no pressure and push light pressure (SCS). The 26 models included in the study were imported into the 3 Shape Ortho System 2022 (ver. 85.0.20 3 Shape, Denmark), and attachments were virtually placed on the dental elements of the first premolar and on both sides of the first upper molars. The accuracy of the attachment reproduction was evaluated through linear and angular evaluations against the reference model (MCAD). Three physical models were obtained: model A (MA), which was printed with attachments; model B (MB) with attachments made with a PE template; and model C (MC) with attachments made with a PET-G template.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results showed statistically significant differences (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In light of the obtained data, using a PET-G template is recommended. The pressure application during composite curing reduces the reproduction accuracy with a low-viscosity composite.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37895792
pii: ma16206811
doi: 10.3390/ma16206811
pmc: PMC10607942
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 11;18(6):
pubmed: 33799682
J Orthod. 2016 Jan 8;:1-9
pubmed: 26743036
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jan;135(1):27-35
pubmed: 19121497
Turk J Orthod. 2019 Dec 1;32(4):241-246
pubmed: 32110470
Materials (Basel). 2022 Jan 11;15(2):
pubmed: 35057250
Dent Mater J. 2009 Nov;28(6):730-4
pubmed: 20019425
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2022 Oct;134:105391
pubmed: 35930946
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023 Aug;164(2):172-182
pubmed: 36898898
Angle Orthod. 2021 Sep 1;91(5):583-589
pubmed: 33848325
Korean J Orthod. 2018 Sep;48(5):316-325
pubmed: 30206530
Korean J Orthod. 2012 Aug;42(4):218-24
pubmed: 23112953
Acta Odontol Scand. 2018 Oct;76(7):473-481
pubmed: 29447057
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jun 11;14:68
pubmed: 24923279
Prog Orthod. 2016;17:12
pubmed: 27041551
J Orofac Orthop. 2020 Jan;81(1):30-40
pubmed: 31834419
Materials (Basel). 2019 Dec 02;12(23):
pubmed: 31810298
Dent Mater J. 2021 Jan 31;40(1):44-51
pubmed: 32848103
Sci Rep. 2023 Jul 5;13(1):10921
pubmed: 37407694
Angle Orthod. 2021 Nov 1;91(6):794-803
pubmed: 34061964
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2023 Jan;111(1):194-202
pubmed: 36318602
Dent Traumatol. 2017 Apr;33(2):106-109
pubmed: 27324048
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Nov;24(4):520-527
pubmed: 33386697
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 May;123(5):578-81
pubmed: 12750680
J Dent Sci. 2021 Jul;16(3):1001-1009
pubmed: 34141116
Angle Orthod. 2015 Sep;85(5):881-9
pubmed: 25412265
Prog Orthod. 2013 Oct 01;14:35
pubmed: 24325837
J Clin Orthod. 2007 Sep;41(9):525-47; quiz 523
pubmed: 17921600
Sci Prog. 2021 Apr-Jun;104(2):368504211011868
pubmed: 33940998