Tooth mobility restriction by multistranded and CAD/CAM retainers-an in vitro study.

CAD/CAM PDL multistranded retainers tooth mobility

Journal

European journal of orthodontics
ISSN: 1460-2210
Titre abrégé: Eur J Orthod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7909010

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Dec 2023
Historique:
medline: 13 12 2023
pubmed: 13 12 2023
entrez: 12 12 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Orthodontic retainers should restrict physiological tooth mobility as little as possible. While this has been investigated for multistranded retainers, there is a lack of data for novel CAD/CAM retainers. To address this, the present study compared the restriction of physiological tooth mobility in multistranded retainers and different CAD/CAM retainers. One group of multistranded (n = 8) and five groups of CAD/CAM retainers (nickel-titanium (NiTi), titanium grade 5 (Ti5), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), zirconia (ZrO2), and cobalt-chromium (CoCr); each n = 8) bonded from canine to canine were investigated for their influence on vertical and horizontal tooth mobility using an in vitro model of a lower arch in a universal testing machine. Load-deflection curves were determined and statistically analysed. All retainers restricted tooth mobility to varying extents. The retainers had less of an influence on vertical tooth mobility, with less of a difference between retainers (14%-38% restriction). In contrast, significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences were observed between retainers in the restriction of horizontal tooth mobility. ZrO2 retainers had the greatest impact, restricting horizontal tooth mobility by 82% (68 ± 20 µm/100N), followed by CoCr (75%, 94 ± 26 µm/100N) and PEEK (73%, 103 ± 28 µm/100N) CAD/CAM retainers, which had comparable effects on horizontal tooth mobility. Ti5 (54%, 175 ± 66 µm/100N) and NiTi (34%, 248 ± 119 µm/100N) CAD/CAM retainers had less of an influence on horizontal tooth mobility, and were comparable to multistranded retainers (44%, 211 ± 77 µm/100N). This is an in vitro study, so clinical studies are needed to draw clinical conclusions. Multistranded and CAD/CAM retainers have different effects on tooth mobility in vitro. These effects should be further explored in future in vivo studies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38086543
pii: 7471591
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjad076
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kieferorthopädie e.V.

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Christoph J Roser (CJ)

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.

Stefan Rues (S)

Department of Prosthodontics, Heidelberg University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.

Ralf Erber (R)

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.

Lutz Hodecker (L)

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.

Christopher J Lux (CJ)

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.

Carolien A J Bauer (CAJ)

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH