The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Fatigue resistance, debonding force, and failure type of fiber-reinforced composite, polyethylene ribbon-reinforced, and braided stainless steel wire lingual retainers in vitro

  • Foek, Dave Lie Sam (Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen) ;
  • Yetkiner, Enver (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege) ;
  • Ozcan, Mutlu (Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Centre for Dental and Oral Medicine, University of Zurich)
  • Received : 2013.04.23
  • Accepted : 2013.05.22
  • Published : 2013.08.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the fatigue resistance, debonding force, and failure type of fiber-reinforced composite, polyethylene ribbon-reinforced, and braided stainless steel wire lingual retainers in vitro. Methods: Roots of human mandibular central incisors were covered with silicone, mimicking the periodontal ligament, and embedded in polymethylmethacrylate. The specimens (N = 50), with two teeth each, were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10/group) according to the retainer materials: (1) Interlig (E-glass), (2) everStick Ortho (E-glass), (3) DentaPreg Splint (S2-glass), (4) Ribbond (polyethylene), and (5) Quad Cat wire (stainless steel). After the recommended adhesive procedures, the retainers were bonded to the teeth by using flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow). The teeth were subjected to 10,00,000 cyclic loads (8 Hz, 3 - 100 N, $45^{\circ}$ angle, under $37{\pm}3^{\circ}C$ water) at their incisoproximal contact, and debonding forces were measured with a universal testing machine (1 mm/min crosshead speed). Failure sites were examined under a stereomicroscope (${\times}40$ magnification). Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance. Results: All the specimens survived the cyclic loading. Their mean debonding forces were not significantly different (p > 0.05). The DentaPreg Splint group (80%) showed the highest incidence of complete adhesive debonding, followed by the Interlig group (60%). The everStick Ortho group (80%) presented predominantly partial adhesive debonding. The Quad Cat wire group (50%) presented overlying composite detachment. Conclusions: Cyclic loading did not cause debonding. The retainers presented similar debonding forces but different failure types. Braided stainless steel wire retainers presented the most repairable failure type.

Keywords

References

  1. Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:614-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.041
  2. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:207-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70085-4
  3. Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod 1991; 25:619-30.
  4. Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year followup study of various types of orthodontic canine-tocanine retainers. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:501-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/19.5.501
  5. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: a systematic review. J Orthod 2006;33:205-12. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021624
  6. Burstone CJ, Kuhlberg AJ. Fiber-reinforced composites in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod 2000;34:271-9.
  7. Foek DL, Ozcan M, Krebs E, Sandham A. Adhesive properties of bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber-reinforced composites. J Adhes Dent 2009;11:381-90.
  8. Lumsden KW, Saidler G, McColl JH. Breakage incidence with direct-bonded lingual retainers. Br J Orthod 1999;26:191-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/26.3.191
  9. Lie Sam Foek DJ, Ozcan M, Verkerke GJ, Sandham A, Dijkstra PU. Survival of flexible, braided, bonded stainless steel lingual retainers: a historic cohort study. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:199-204. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm117
  10. Lee KD, Mills CM. Bond failure rates for V-loop vs straight wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:502-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.037
  11. Taner T, Aksu M. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:470-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr038
  12. Cooke ME, Sherriff M. Debonding force and deformation of two multi-stranded lingual retainer wires bonded to incisor enamel: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:741-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq017
  13. Rose E, Frucht S, Jonas IE. Clinical comparison of a multistranded wire and a direct-bonded polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite used for lingual retention. Quintessence Int 2002;33:579-83.
  14. Tacken MP, Cosyn J, De Wilde P, Aerts J, Govaerts E, Vannet BV. Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32:117-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp100
  15. Bolla E, Cozzani M, Doldo T, Fontana M. Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: a comparison between glass fiber-reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int Orthod 2012; 10:16-28.
  16. Kumbuloglu O, Saracoglu A, Ozcan M. Pilot study of unidirectional E-glass fibre-reinforced composite resin splints: up to 4.5-year clinical follow-up. J Dent 2011;39:871-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.09.012
  17. Meiers JC, Kazemi RB, Donadio M. The influence of fiber reinforcement of composites on shear bond strengths to enamel. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:388-93. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.87
  18. Scribante A, Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF. Effect of various adhesive systems on the shear bond strength of fiber-reinforced composite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:224-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.020
  19. Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. Ex vivo fracture resistance of direct resin composite complete crowns with and without posts on maxillary premolars. Int Endod J 2005;38:230-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00941.x
  20. Ozcan M, Valandro LF. Fracture strength of endodontically- treated teeth restored with post and cores and composite cores only. Oper Dent 2009;34:429-36. https://doi.org/10.2341/08-110
  21. Baldissara P, Ozcan M, Melilli D, Valandro LF. Effect of cyclic loading on fracture strength and microleakage of a quartz fiber dowel with different adhesive, cement and resin core material combinations. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:407-14.
  22. McCabe JF, Carrick TE, Chadwick RG, Walls AW. Alternative approaches to evaluating the fatigue characteristics of materials. Dent Mater 1990;6:24-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(90)90040-L
  23. Ruse ND, Shew R, Feduik D. In vitro fatigue testing of a dental bonding system on enamel. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:411-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820290316
  24. Grandini S, Chieffi N, Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Fatigue resistance and structural integrity of different types of fiber posts. Dent Mater J 2008; 27:687-94. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.27.687
  25. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Ravnholt G, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Resistance to cyclic loading of teeth restored with posts. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:84-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-004-0299-7
  26. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84:118-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910508400204

Cited by

  1. Comparison of the effects of different retention appliances on the oxidant-antioxidant system vol.30, pp.15, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1157433
  2. Shear bond strength to enamel and failure type of different periodontal splints: an in vivo and in vitro study vol.31, pp.12, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1257236
  3. Spot-Bonding and Full-Bonding Techniques for Fiber Reinforced Composite (FRC) and Metallic Retainers vol.18, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18102096
  4. Fiber-Reinforced Composites for Dental Applications vol.2018, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4734986
  5. Nanomechanical properties, surface topography, and color stability of fiber-reinforced composite orthodontic retainers vol.27, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/0967391118819703
  6. Comparative Evaluation of Flexural Strength and Flexural Modulus of Different Periodontal Splint Materials: An In Vitro Study vol.9, pp.19, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9194197
  7. Clinical comparison between Multi-Stranded Wires and Single strand Ribbon wires used for lingual fixed retainers vol.21, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-020-00315-7
  8. Shear Bond Strength of Four Types of Orthodontic Retainers after Thermocycling and Cyclic Loading vol.2021, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9424040
  9. Biological function following radical photo-polymerization of biomedical polymers and surrounding tissues: Design considerations and cellular risk factors vol.8, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0015093
  10. The Effect of Material Type and Location of an Orthodontic Retainer in Resisting Axial or Buccal Forces vol.14, pp.9, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092319