Display options
Share it on

Polymers (Basel). 2020 Apr 21;12(4). doi: 10.3390/polym12040963.

Fear of the Relapse: Effect of Composite Type on Adhesion Efficacy of Upper and Lower Orthodontic Fixed Retainers: In Vitro Investigation and Randomized Clinical Trial.

Polymers

Andrea Scribante, Simone Gallo, Benedetta Turcato, Federico Trovati, Paola Gandini, Maria Francesca Sfondrini

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.

PMID: 32326201 PMCID: PMC7240513 DOI: 10.3390/polym12040963

Abstract

The aim of this laboratory and clinical study is to determine the reliability of the flowable nanocomposite Filtek Supreme XTE (FL) for the adhesion of orthodontic retainers, compared to highly filled orthodontic resin Transbond XT (XT). Portions of a round section multistranded wire (Ortosmail Krugg) were bonded to 40 bovine incisors with Scotchbond Universal in total-etch modality. For group one (XT, 20 samples), the orthodontic resin was used, whereas in group two (FL, 20 samples), the flowable one. Specimens were placed into a universal testing machine which applied a shear force on retainers with a crosshead speed of one/minute. Shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were calculated. In the clinical trial, 100 patients requiring a canine-to-canine palatal and lingual retainer were randomly divided into two groups, according to the resin used for bonding procedure: the orthodontic in group one (XT, 50 participants) and the flowable in group two (FL, 50 participants). Monthly visits were carried out over a 24-month follow up to assess any detachment occurring on teeth of both arches. All data were submitted to statistical analysis. In vitro, FL reported a significant lower mean SBS, whereas no significant differences in ARI were reported between the two groups which both showed a major frequency of scores "1" and "2". At the end of the 24-month follow up, FL reported significantly higher failure rates in both arches besides a significantly lower survival rate starting from the sixth month after retainers bonding. According to the results assessed in vitro and clinically, XT would be preferable to FL when performing retainers bonding procedure.

Keywords: adhesion; bonding; clinical trial; fixed retention; flow; multistrand wire; nanocomposite; orthodontic composite; resin; retainer; shear; splint

References

  1. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2012 Spring;36(3):223-34 - PubMed
  2. J Investig Clin Dent. 2014 Aug;5(3):226-36 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Orthod. 1991 Oct;25(10):619-30 - PubMed
  4. Oper Dent. 2008 Mar-Apr;33(2):155-62 - PubMed
  5. Head Face Med. 2014 Nov 28;10:51 - PubMed
  6. J Orthod. 2009 Jun;36(2):115-21 - PubMed
  7. J Dent Res. 2008 Aug;87(8):710-9 - PubMed
  8. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 29;(1):CD002283 - PubMed
  9. J Adhes Dent. 2003 Summer;5(2):107-12 - PubMed
  10. Am J Orthod. 1984 Apr;85(4):333-40 - PubMed
  11. Biomed Res Int. 2018 Nov 1;2018:4734986 - PubMed
  12. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Sep;124(3):327-30 - PubMed
  13. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2016 Apr 06;14(1):e78-83 - PubMed
  14. Oper Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):520-530 - PubMed
  15. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Dec;32(6):741-6 - PubMed
  16. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Aug;31(4):432-7 - PubMed
  17. Angle Orthod. 2010 Jan;80(1):195-200 - PubMed
  18. Biomed Res Int. 2020 Jan 30;2020:6747498 - PubMed
  19. Materials (Basel). 2020 Feb 01;13(3): - PubMed
  20. J Orofac Orthop. 2004 Jul;65(4):321-35 - PubMed
  21. Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Oct 04;18(10): - PubMed
  22. Eur J Orthod. 2015 Oct;37(5):491-6 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014 Apr 01;6(2):e145-9 - PubMed
  24. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:1329814 - PubMed
  25. Dent Mater. 2005 Apr;21(4):375-83 - PubMed
  26. Orthodontics (Chic.). 2013;14(1):e110-7 - PubMed
  27. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Sep;80(3):311-8 - PubMed
  28. Prog Orthod. 2013 Sep 11;14:25 - PubMed
  29. J Dent. 2006 Jan;34(1):77-85 - PubMed
  30. J Oral Rehabil. 1992 May;19(3):225-30 - PubMed
  31. J Orofac Orthop. 2002 Jan;63(1):42-50 - PubMed
  32. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Feb;137(2):170-7; discussion 177 - PubMed
  33. Materials (Basel). 2020 Feb 25;13(5): - PubMed
  34. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Aug;130(2):224-7 - PubMed
  35. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Apr;32(2):117-23 - PubMed
  36. Int J Dent. 2011;2011:548356 - PubMed
  37. J Adhes Dent. 2014 Jun;16(3):243-50 - PubMed
  38. Dent Mater. 2016 Nov;32(11):1385-1393 - PubMed
  39. J Orofac Orthop. 2010 Jul;71(4):290-9 - PubMed
  40. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:315023 - PubMed
  41. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Oct;150(4):575-584 - PubMed
  42. Dent Mater. 2009 Nov;25(11):1459-67 - PubMed
  43. Prog Orthod. 2019 Jul 22;20(1):28 - PubMed
  44. Swiss Dent J. 2014;124(6):655-61 - PubMed
  45. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jun;119(6):625-31 - PubMed
  46. Aust Orthod J. 2004 Nov;20(2):99-106 - PubMed
  47. Oper Dent. 2009 Sep-Oct;34(5):531-6 - PubMed
  48. Dent Traumatol. 2014 Feb;30(1):43-8 - PubMed

Publication Types