Bond Strength and Deflection of Four Types of Bonded Lingual Retainers

Amin Golshah, Shirin Asadian Feyli, Amin Golshah, Shirin Asadian Feyli

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the bond strength and deflection of four types of bonded lingual retainers.

Materials and methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, 160 extracted, mandibular incisors were mounted in acrylic blocks in sets of two and randomized into four groups for bonding of 1.0.010 × 0.026-inch Bond-A-Braid®, 0.012 × 0.027-inch Retanium®TM, 0.038 × 0.016-inch Ortho FlexTech®, and 0.0175-inch three-strand retainer wires; 15 mm of passive wire was adhered to the lingual tooth surface using Transbond XT composite. The shear (SBS) and tensile (TBS) bond strength values were measured. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) score and deflection of wires were also determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by the chi-square test and ANOVA.

Results: The four groups were significantly different regarding the ARI scores (P < 0.05). Significant differences were noted between the three-strand and all other groups in deflection (P < 0.05). The Retanium group had significant differences with other groups in peak SBS (P < 0.05). A significant difference was found between the Retanium and Ortho Flex groups in break SBS (P < 0.05). Significant differences were also reported between the three-strand and all other groups in peak TBS (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The Retanium retainer had the maximum SBS, while the three-strand retainer had the maximum TBS. The three-strand and Retanium wires can probably better tolerate intraoral forces and have higher resistance to fracture due to having higher TBS. Also, the three-strand wire had lower deflection rate, which highlights its higher resistance to occlusal forces. Retanium and Ortho FlexTech wires had the most favorable failure modes.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2022 Amin Golshah and Shirin Asadian Feyli.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of ARI frequency among study groups.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean deflection rate in the four groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean shear bond strength at peak in the four groups.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mean tensile bond strength at peak in the four groups.

References

    1. Cooke M. E., Sherriff M. Debonding force and deformation of two multi-stranded lingual retainer wires bonded to incisor enamel: an in vitro study. The European Journal of Orthodontics . 2010;32(6):741–746. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq017.
    1. Cerny R. Permanent fixed lingual retention. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics: Journal of Clinical Orthodontics . 2001;35(12):728–732.
    1. Durbin D. D. Relapse and the need for permanent fixed retention. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics: Journal of Clinical Orthodontics . 2001;35(12):723–727.
    1. Southard T. E., Southard K. A., Tolley E. A. Periodontal force: a potential cause of relapse. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . 1992;101(3):221–227. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(92)70090-w.
    1. Richardson M. E. Late lower arch crowding: the role of differential horizontal growth. British Journal of Orthodontics . 1994;21(4):379–385. doi: 10.1179/bjo.21.4.379.
    1. Sadowsky C., Schneider B. J., BeGole E. A., Tahir E. Long-term stability after orthodontic treatment: nonextraction with prolonged retention. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . 1994;106(3):243–249. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(94)70043-5.
    1. Artun J., Spadafora A. T., Shapiro P. A. A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. The European Journal of Orthodontics . 1997;19(5):501–509. doi: 10.1093/ejo/19.5.501.
    1. Dahl E. H., Zachrisson B. U. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics: Journal of Clinical Orthodontics . 1991;25(10):619–630.
    1. Baysal A., Uysal T., Gul N., Alan M. B., Ramoglu S. I. Comparison of three different orthodontic wires for bonded lingual retainer fabrication. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics . 2012;42(1):39–46. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.1.39.
    1. Samson R. S., Varghese E., Uma E., Chandrappa P. R. Evaluation of bond strength and load deflection rate of multi-stranded fixed retainer wires: an in-vitro study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry . 2018;9(1):10–14. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_632_17.
    1. Lucchese A., Manuelli M., Ciuffreda C., Albertini P., Gherlone E., Perillo L. Comparison between fiber-reinforced polymers and stainless steel orthodontic retainers. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics . 2018;48(2):107–112. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2018.48.2.107.
    1. Radlanski R. J., Zain N. D. Stability of the bonded lingual wire retainer-a study of the initial bond strength. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics . 2004;65(4):321–335. doi: 10.1007/s00056-004-0401-4.
    1. van Westing K., Algera T. J., Kleverlaan C. J. Rebond strength of bonded lingual wire retainers. The European Journal of Orthodontics . 2012;34(3):345–349. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr017.
    1. Faltermeier A., Behr M., Müssig D. A comparative evaluation of bracket bonding with 1-, 2-, and 3-component adhesive systems. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . 2007;132(2):144–145. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.019.
    1. Bishara S. E., VonWald L., Laffoon J. F., Warren J. J. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . 2001;119(6):621–624. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.113269.
    1. Bryan D. C., Sherriff M. An in vitro comparison between a bonded retainer system and a directly bonded flexible spiral wire retainer. The European Journal of Orthodontics . 1995;17(2):143–151. doi: 10.1093/ejo/17.2.143.
    1. Artun J., Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. American Journal of Orthodontics . 1984;85(4):333–340. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8.
    1. Carstensen W. Clinical effects of reduction of acid concentration on direct bonding of brackets. The Angle Orthodontist . 1993;63(3):221–224. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1993)063<0221:CEOROA>;2.
    1. Milheiro A., Jager N. d., Feilzer A. J., Kleverlaan C. J. In vitrodebonding of orthodontic retainers analyzed with finite element analysis. The European Journal of Orthodontics . 2015;37(5):491–496. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cju074.
    1. Reynolds I. R. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. British Journal of Orthodontics . 1975;2(3):171–178. doi: 10.1080/0301228x.1975.11743666.
    1. Scribante A., Contreras-Bulnes R., Montasser M. A., Vallittu P. K. Orthodontics: bracket materials, adhesives systems, and their bond strength. BioMed Research International . 2016;2016:3. doi: 10.1155/2016/1329814.1329814
    1. Scribante A., Gallo S., Turcato B., Trovati F., Gandini P., Sfondrini M. F. 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 . 2020;12(4):p. 963. doi: 10.3390/polym12040963.
    1. Bearn D. R. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . 1995;108(2):207–213. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70085-4.
    1. Nagani N. I., Ahmed I., Tanveer F., Khursheed H. M., Farooqui W. A. Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health . 2020;20(1):p. 180. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01167-7.
    1. Kartal Y., Kaya B., Polat-Özsoy Ö. Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie . 2021;82(1):32–41. doi: 10.1007/s00056-020-00243-5.
    1. Leão Filho J. C., Braz A. K., de Araujo R. E., Tanaka O. M., Pithon M. M. Enamel quality after debonding: evaluation by optical coherence tomography. Brazilian Dental Journal . 2015;26(4):384–389.
    1. Faria-Júnior É. M., Guiraldo R. D., Berger S. B., et al. In-vivo evaluation of the surface roughness and morphology of enamel after bracket removal and polishing by different techniques. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . 2015;147(3):324–329.
    1. Mattick C. R., Hobson R. S. A comparative micro-topographic study of the buccal enamel of different tooth types. Journal of Orthodontics . 2000;27(2):143–148. doi: 10.1093/ortho/27.2.143.
    1. Heydecke G., Butz F., Strub J. R. Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: an in-vitro study. Journal of Dentistry . 2001;29(6):427–433. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(01)00038-0.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever