Advertisement

Comparison of the different retention appliances produced using CAD/CAM and conventional methods and different surface roughening methods

  • Merve Aycan
  • Merve Goymen
Original Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

The purposes of this study are to conduct an in vitro comparison of the shear bond strength, breakage mode, and wire deformation of three different types of retainers and to compare the subsequent enamel surface changes. Two hundred seventy intact lower incisor teeth were embedded in acrylic blocks in pairs. Dead wire and CAD/CAM-fabricated and fiber-reinforced wires were applied to the teeth roughened with acid and Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG laser. The surface roughness was observed by scanning electron and atomic force microscopy. The samples were analyzed for shear bonds. The dead wire and acid group were found to have the highest bonding strength and the strengths for all groups in which acid was used as an agent were found to be higher than others. Deformation of retainers was most noted in the dead wire-acid group. Among all the groups, the CAD/CAM-fabricated wire group showed the least deformation, with no deformation observed. In this study, it was determined that there is a significant correlation between ARI scores and agents. Consequently, acid etching was found to create more enamel surface roughness than laser groups. It was also seen that the combined use of the acid method and dead soft wire had the highest bond strength, even though it was not statistically significant. It was concluded that CAD/CAM-fabricated wire provides the opportunity for reuse in clinical applications due to its lack of deformation, being more conservative for the patient, and being more advantageous for the clinician in terms of session time, considering the residual adhesive amount left on the enamel surface.

Keywords

AFM Bonding strength Laser Memotain SEM Strengthening 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval was received from Gaziantep University Clinical Trials Ethics Committee for our study with decree no. 47 dated 27.02.2017.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Nanda R, Burstone CJ (1993) Retention and stability in orthodontics. WB Saunders Company, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnston C, Littlewood S (2015) Retention in orthodontics. BDJ 218:119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar KR, Sundari KS, Venkatesan A, Chandrasekar S (2011) Depth of resin penetration into enamel with 3 types of enamel conditioning methods: a confocal microscopic study. AJO-DO 140:479–485Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ozdemir F, Cakan U, Gonul N, Germec Cakan D (2013) Orthodontic bonding to acid-or laser-etched prebleached enamel. Korean J Orthod 43:141–146CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cokakoglu S, Nalcacı R, Usumez S, Malkoc S (2016) Effects of different combinations of Er: YAG laser-adhesives on enamel demineralization and bracket bond strength. Photomed Laser Surg 34:164–170CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hess JA (1990) Scanning electron microscopic study of laser-induced morphologic changes of a coated enamel surface. Lasers Surg Med 10:458–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arcoria C, Lippas M, Vitasek B (1993) Enamel surface roughness analysis after laser ablation and acid-etching. J Oral Rehabil 20:213–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Milheiro A, Jager ND, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ (2014) In vitro debonding of orthodontic retainers analyzed with finite element analysis. Eur J Orthod 37:491–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scribante A, Sfondrini MF, Broggini S, D'Allocco M, Gandini P (2011) Efficacy of esthetic retainers: clinical comparison between multistranded wires and direct-bond glass fiber-reinforced composite splints. Int J Dent 2011Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schneider E, Ruf S (2011) Upper bonded retainers: survival and failure rates. Angle Orthod 81:1050–1056CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kravitz ND, Grauer D, Schumacher P, Jo YM (2017) Memotain: a CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer. AJO-DO 151:812–815Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naseh R, Fallahzadeh F, Atai M, Mortezai O, Setayeshrad R (2017) Casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate effects on brackets shear bond strength and enamel damage. J Clin Exp Dent 9:1002Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baysal A, Uysal T, Gul N, Alan MB, Ramoglu SI (2012) Comparison of three different orthodontic wires for bonded lingual retainer fabrication. Korean J Orthod 42:39–46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finnema KJ, Özcan M, Post WJ, Ren Y, Dijkstra PU (2010) In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJO-DO 137:615–622Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reynolds I (1975) A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 2:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lorenzo M, Portillo M, Moreno P, Montero J, Castillo-Oyagüe R, García A, Albaladejo A (2014) In vitro analysis of femtosecond laser as an alternative to acid etching for achieving suitable bond strength of brackets to human enamel. Lasers Med Sci 29:897–905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basaran G, Hamamcı N, Akkurt A (2011) Shear bond strength of bonding to enamel with different laser irradiation distances. Lasers Med Sci 26:149–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sagir S, Usumez A, Ademci E, Usumez S (2013) Effect of enamel laser irradiation at different pulse settings on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 83:973–980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aglarci C, Demir N, Aksakalli S, Dilber E, Sozer OA, Kilic HS (2016) Bond strengths of brackets bonded to enamel surfaces conditioned with femtosecond and Er: YAG laser systems. Lasers Med Sci 31:1177–1183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Tamaki Y, Yamada Y, Murakami Y, Matsumoto K (2003) Atomic analysis and knoop hardness measurement of the cavity floor prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 30:515–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martínez-Insua A, da Silva Dominguez L, Rivera FG, Santana-Penín UA (2000) Differences in bonding to acid-etched or Er: YAG-laser–treated enamel and dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 84:280–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee BS, Hsieh TT, Lee YL, Lan WH, Hsu YJ, Wen PH, Lin CP (2003) Bond strengths of orthodontic bracket after acid-etched, Er:YAG laser-irradiated and combined treatment on enamel surface. Angle Orthod 73:565–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Basaran G, Özer T, Berk N, Hamamcı O (2007) Etching enamel for orthodontics with an erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser system. Angle Orthod 77:117–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Driessens F (1977) Chemical adhesion in dentistry. Int Dent J 27:317–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whitters CJ, Strang R (2000) Preliminary investigation of a novel carbon dioxide laser for applications in dentistry. Lasers Surg Med 26:262–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brauchli L, Pintus S, Steineck M, Luthy H, Wichelhaus A (2009) Shear modulus of 5 flowable composites to the EverStick Ortho fiber-reinforced composite retainer: an in-vitro study. AJO-DO 135:54–58Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cooke M, Sherriff M (2010) Debonding force and deformation of two multi-stranded lingual retainer wires bonded to incisor enamel: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 32:741–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Foek D, Ozcan M, Krebs E, Sandham A (2009) Adhesive properties of bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber-reinforced composites. J Adhes Dent 11:381–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kucukyilmaz E, Botsali M, Korkut E, Sener Y, Sari T (2017) Effect of different modes of erbium: yttrium aluminum garnet laser on shear bond strength to dentin. Niger J Clin Pract 20:1277–1282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Altunsoy M, Botsali MS, Sari T, Onat H (2015) Effect of different surface treatments on the microtensile bond strength of two self-adhesive flowable composites. Lasers Med Sci 30:1667–1673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Akin M, Veli I, Erdur EA, Aksakalli S, Uysal T (2016) Different pulse modes of Er: YAG laser irradiation: effects on bond strength achieved with self-etching primers. J Orofac Orthoped 77:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kucukyildirim BO (2006) Examination of corrosion behaviors in different environments of orthodontic wires. Dissertation, Yildiz Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ulgen M (1993) Principles of orthodontic treatment. Ankara University printing Office, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zachrisson B (1981) The bonded lingual retainer and multiple spacing of anterior teeth. Swed Dent J Suppl 15:247–255Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lumsden KW, Saidler G, McColl JH (1999) Breakage incidence with direct bonded lingual retainers. J Orthod 26:191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dahl EH (1991) Long term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod 25:619–630PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dentistry Faculty, Department of OrthodonticsGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey

Personalised recommendations