Assessment of wear characteristics, longevity and stiffness of Essix-type retainers.
Essix
Orthodontic
Retainers
Retention
Thermoplastic
VFRs
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Mar 2024
02 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
29
07
2023
accepted:
08
01
2024
medline:
4
3
2024
pubmed:
2
3
2024
entrez:
1
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare four commercially available Essix-type retainers in terms of longevity, wear characteristics, stiffness and their range of rigidity. An in vitro study was conducted at Queen Mary University of London. Four groups of thermoplastic materials were included: Duran (PETG), Essix C + (Polypropylene), Vivera and Zendura (Polyurethane). A working typodont was fabricated to evaluate surface wear characteristics using a wear machine with a customized jig. Retainers were measured for tensile test, and water absorption was measured at five different time points up to 6 months after initial immersion in two different physical states and two different solutions. Hydrolytic degradation was also evaluated using FTIR spectroscopy. Essix C + was the most flexible retainer with Vivera the stiffest material. Zendura and Essix C + had the most surface wear (413 μm ± 80 and 652 μm ± 12, respectively) with absorption rates of up to 15 wt% in artificial saliva occurring with Zendura. Only Essix C + displayed signs of degradation following water absorption. All materials had characteristic levels of flexibility and were susceptible to water absorption. Duran 1.5 mm performed similarly to Vivera in relation to stiffness and wear properties. While Zendura and Vivera have similar chemical structures, they exhibited differences concerning wear resistance and water absorption. Further clinical research evaluating the clinical relevance of these laboratory findings is required. Characteristic patterns of wear and rigidity of four commercially available Essix-type retainers were observed. This information should help in the tailoring of retainer material on a case-by-case basis considering treatment-related factors and patient characteristics including parafunctional habits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38429372
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05503-x
pii: 10.1007/s00784-024-05503-x
pmc: PMC10907433
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polypropylenes
0
Polyurethanes
0
Saliva, Artificial
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
185Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ponitz RJ (1971) Invisible retainers. Am J Orthod 59(3):266–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90099-6
doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90099-6
pubmed: 5276727
Sheridan JJ, LeDoux W, McMinn R (1993) Essix retainers: fabrication and supervision for permanent retention. J Clin Orthod: JCO 27(1):37–45
pubmed: 8478438
Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Vogels DS, Vogels PB (2014) 2014 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, Part 1: Results and trends. J Clin Orthod: JCO 48(10):607–630
pubmed: 25416338
Meade MJ, Dreyer CW (2019) A survey of retention and retainer practices of orthodontists in Australia. Australas Orthod J 35(2):174–183. https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-047
doi: 10.21307/aoj-2020-047
Meade MJ, Millett D (2013) Retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers among specialist orthodontists. J Orthod 40(4):318–325. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000066
doi: 10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000066
pubmed: 24297964
Singh P, Grammati S, Kirschen R (2009) Orthodontic retention patterns in the United Kingdom. J Orthod 36(2):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1179/14653120723040
doi: 10.1179/14653120723040
pubmed: 19487742
Wong PM, Freer TJ (2004) A comprehensive survey of retention procedures in Australia and New Zealand. Aust Orthod J 20(2):99–106
pubmed: 16429880
Edman Tynelius G, Bondemark L, Lilja-Karlander E (2013) A randomized controlled trial of three orthodontic retention methods in Class I four premolar extraction cases—stability after 2 years in retention. Orthod Craniofac Res 16(2):105–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12011
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12011
pubmed: 23324112
Sun J, Yu YC, Liu MY, Chen L, Li HW, Zhang L, Zhou Y, Ao D, Tao R, Lai WL (2011) Survival time comparison between hawley and clear overlay retainers: a randomized trial. J Dent Res 90(10):1197–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511415274
doi: 10.1177/0022034511415274
pubmed: 21771797
Ashari A, Xian L, Syed Mohamed AMF et al (2022) One-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers. Angle Orthod 92(2):197–203
doi: 10.2319/050921-363.1
pubmed: 34797378
Raja TA, Littlewood SJ, Munyombwe T, Bubb NL (2014) Wear resistance of four types of vacuum-formed retainer materials: a laboratory study. Angle Orthod 84(4):656–664. https://doi.org/10.2319/061313-448.1
doi: 10.2319/061313-448.1
pubmed: 24364752
Gardner GD, Dunn WJ, Taloumis L (2003) Wear comparison of thermoplastic materials used for orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124(3):294–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00502-X
doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00502-X
Bratu DC, Vinatu VF, Pop SI, Petrescu PH, Simon CP, Popa G (2019) Wear resistance under high load forces of four different polyethylene terephthalate glycol vacuum-formed orthodontic retainers. Mater Plastice 56(3):505–509. https://doi.org/10.37358/MP.19.3.5218
doi: 10.37358/MP.19.3.5218
Doğramacı E, Chubb D, Rossi-Fedele G (2018) Orthodontic thermoformed retainers: a two-arm laboratory study into post-fabrication outcomes. Aust Dent J 63(3):347–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12610
doi: 10.1111/adj.12610
Inoue S, Yamaguchi S, Uyama H, Yamashiro T, Imazato S (2020) Influence of constant strain on the elasticity of thermoplastic orthodontic materials. Dent Mater J 39(3):415–421. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-104
doi: 10.4012/dmj.2019-104
pubmed: 31827059
Ryokawa H, Miyazaki Y, Fujishima A, Miyazaki T, Maki K (2006) The mechanical properties of dental thermoplastic materials in a simulated intraoral environment. Orthod Waves 65(2):64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2006.03.003
doi: 10.1016/j.odw.2006.03.003
Zhang N, Bai Y, Ding X, Zhang Y (2011) Preparation and characterization of thermoplastic materials for invisible orthodontics. Dent Mater J 30(6):954–959. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-120
doi: 10.4012/dmj.2011-120
pubmed: 22123023
Peters MC, Delong R, Pintado MR, Pallesen U, Qvist V, Douglas WH (1999) Comparison of two measurement techniques for clinical wear. J Dent 27(7):479–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00027-5
doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00027-5
pubmed: 10507203
Iijima M, Kohda N, Kawaguchi K, Muguruma T, Ohta M, Naganishi A, Murakami T, Mizoguchi I (2015) Effects of temperature changes and stress loading on the mechanical and shape memory properties of thermoplastic materials with different glass transition behaviours and crystal structures. Eur J Orthod 37(6):665–670. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv013
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv013
pubmed: 25788333
Tamburrino F, D’Antò V, Bucci R, Alessandri-Bonetti G, Barone S, Razionale AV (2020) Mechanical properties of thermoplastic polymers for aligner manufacturing: in vitro study. Dent J 8(2):47. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8020047
doi: 10.3390/dj8020047
Ahn H-W, Ha H-R, Lim H-N, Choi S (2015) Effects of aging procedures on the molecular, biochemical, morphological, and mechanical properties of vacuum-formed retainers. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 51:356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.07.026
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.07.026
pubmed: 26282078
Bradley T, Teske L, Eliades G, Zinelis S, Eliades T (2016) Do the mechanical and chemical properties of InvisalignTM appliances change after use? A retrieval analysis. Eur J Orthod 38(1):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv003
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv003
Gibbs CH, Mahan PE, Lundeen HC, Brehnan K, Walsh EK, Holbrook WB (1981) Occlusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission. J Prosthet Dent 46(4):443–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90455-8
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90455-8
pubmed: 6946215