Display options
Share it on

Materials (Basel). 2020 Feb 25;13(5). doi: 10.3390/ma13051028.

Glass Fiber Reinforced Composite Orthodontic Retainer: In Vitro Effect of Tooth Brushing on the Surface Wear and Mechanical Properties.

Materials (Basel, Switzerland)

Maria Francesca Sfondrini, Pekka Kalevi Vallittu, Lippo Veli Juhana Lassila, Annalisa Viola, Paola Gandini, Andrea Scribante

Affiliations

  1. Unit of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Section of Dentistry, Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Paediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
  2. Department of Biomaterial Science and Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre (TCBC), Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, 20100 Turku, Finland.

PMID: 32106404 PMCID: PMC7084318 DOI: 10.3390/ma13051028

Abstract

Fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) are metal free materials that have many applications in dentistry. In clinical orthodontics, they are used as retainers after active treatment in order to avoid relapse. However, although the modulus of the elasticity of FRCs is low, the rigidity of the material in the form of a relatively thick retainer with a surface cover of a flowable resin composite is known to have higher structural rigidity than stainless steel splints. The aim of the present study is to measure load and bending stress of stainless steel wires, as well as flowable resin composite covered and spot‑bonded FRC retainer materials after tooth brushing. These materials were tested with a three point bending test for three different conditions: no brushing, 26 min of brushing, and 60 min of brushing. SEM images were taken before and after different times of tooth brushing. Results showed that stainless steel was not significantly affected by tooth brushing. On the other hand, a significant reduction of values at maximum load at fracture was reported for both FRC groups, and uncovered FRCs were most affected. Concerning maximum bending stress, no significant reduction by pretreatment conditions was reported for the materials tested. SEM images showed no evident wear for stainless steel. Flowable resin composite covered FRCs showed some signs of composite wear, whereas spot‑bonded FRCs, i.e., without the surface cover of a flowable resin composite, showed signs of wear on the FRC and exposed glass fibers from the FRC's polymer matrix. Because of the significant changes of the reduction of maximum load values and the wear for spot‑bonded FRCs, this technique needs further in vitro and in vivo tests before it can be performed routinely in clinical practice.

Keywords: FRC; bonding; brushing; composite; deflection; fiber; load; mechanical; orthodontics; reinforced; retainer; splint; spot; technique; wear

References

  1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Apr;153(4):496-504 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019 Apr 1;11(4):e334-e339 - PubMed
  3. J Adhes Dent. 2013 Dec;15(6):507-10 - PubMed
  4. J Dent (Shiraz). 2014 Sep;15(3):104-11 - PubMed
  5. J Oral Rehabil. 1992 May;19(3):225-30 - PubMed
  6. Am J Dent. 2009 Feb;22(1):60-4 - PubMed
  7. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018 Nov;87:143-147 - PubMed
  8. Gen Dent. 2017 Jan-Feb;65(1):68-74 - PubMed
  9. J Dent. 2006 Nov;34(10):763-9 - PubMed
  10. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2012 Winter;6(1):12-6 - PubMed
  11. Biomed Res Int. 2019 Feb 4;2019:5109481 - PubMed
  12. J Prosthet Dent. 1999 Mar;81(3):318-26 - PubMed
  13. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:8469090 - PubMed
  14. Eur J Orthod. 2013 Feb;35(1):110-4 - PubMed
  15. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2014 Mar;11(2):234-9 - PubMed
  16. J Conserv Dent. 2012 Apr;15(2):137-40 - PubMed
  17. Microsc Res Tech. 2016 Jul;79(7):646-56 - PubMed
  18. Dent Mater. 2007 Jul;23(7):878-84 - PubMed
  19. Dent J (Basel). 2019 Nov 05;7(4): - PubMed
  20. Braz Dent J. 2012;23(4):373-8 - PubMed
  21. Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Oct 04;18(10): - PubMed
  22. Oper Dent. 2019 Nov/Dec;44(6):637-647 - PubMed
  23. Materials (Basel). 2019 Apr 16;12(8): - PubMed
  24. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Mar;133(3):410-3 - PubMed
  25. Biomed Res Int. 2018 Oct 22;2018:1498901 - PubMed
  26. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016 Jul;60:331-338 - PubMed
  27. J Dent (Tehran). 2012 Spring;9(2):90-8 - PubMed
  28. Dent Mater. 1992 May;8(3):197-202 - PubMed
  29. Am J Dent. 2012 Feb;25(1):54-8 - PubMed
  30. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Oct;84(4):413-8 - PubMed
  31. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2015 Oct 16;13(3):e296-9 - PubMed
  32. Dent Traumatol. 2002 Oct;18(5):275-80 - PubMed
  33. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Nov 30;20(23): - PubMed
  34. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 29;(1):CD002283 - PubMed
  35. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013 Nov 01;14(6):1137-44 - PubMed
  36. Br Dent J. 1992 Nov 7;173(8):272-4 - PubMed
  37. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015 Apr;7(Suppl 1):S220-2 - PubMed
  38. Int J Dent. 2011;2011:548356 - PubMed
  39. Dent Mater. 2000 Jan;16(1):33-40 - PubMed
  40. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2018 May;54(2):76-87 - PubMed
  41. Dent Mater. 2004 Jan;20(1):29-36 - PubMed
  42. J Dent. 1992 Jun;20(3):140-4 - PubMed
  43. Biomed Res Int. 2018 Nov 1;2018:4734986 - PubMed
  44. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015 May;103(4):743-50 - PubMed
  45. J Dent. 1996 Jan-Mar;24(1-2):141-8 - PubMed
  46. J Dent. 2004 Mar;32(3):197-211 - PubMed
  47. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006 Sep 01;7(4):1-8 - PubMed
  48. Eur J Orthod. 1997 Oct;19(5):501-9 - PubMed

Publication Types