{"title":"Debonding forces and failure modes of customized three-dimensional printed nano-ceramic hybrid resin fixed lingual retainers.","authors":"Noor S Alnuaimy, Akram F Alhuwaizi","doi":"10.4103/jos.jos_75_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Retention preserves the optimal esthetic and functional positions of teeth following the termination of active orthodontic treatment. Conventional stainless-steel multistrand fixed retainers have limitations and drawbacks, mainly related to retainer failure.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Nano-ceramic hybrid resin (SprintRay OnX) was employed to fabricate new, customized three-dimensional (3D)-printed lingual retainers, and their debonding forces and failure modes were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Pairs of premolars were embedded in acrylic blocks. Fifty acrylic blocks were divided into five groups, including three different cross-sections of customized 3D-printed wires- round (1 mm), oval (1 × 1.5 mm), and semi-elliptical (1 × 1.5 mm)- and comparative stainless steel multistrand retainers (G and H and Respond). Retainers were bonded to the teeth using Transbond™ LR Light Cure Adhesive. The models were stored in distilled water for 24 hours, simulating the wet intraoral conditions. Debonding forces and failure modes were then evaluated. A vertical debonding force was applied to the interdental area of the bonded retainer. Post-retainer debonding failure mode was examined under a stereomicroscope (×10 magnification).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Semi-elliptical 3D-printed retainers yielded the highest debonding forces, followed by oval 3D-printed retainers, twisted G and H retainers, round 3D-printed retainers, and Respond retainers. The debonding forces of oval and semi-elliptical 3D-printed retainers did not differ significantly. The 3D-printed retainer groups presented predominantly cohesive failure due to the strong adhesion between the 3D-printed resin and adhesive.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Oval and semi-elliptical 3D-printed retainers exhibited favorable debonding forces.</p>","PeriodicalId":16604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontic Science","volume":"14 ","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12036752/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_75_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Retention preserves the optimal esthetic and functional positions of teeth following the termination of active orthodontic treatment. Conventional stainless-steel multistrand fixed retainers have limitations and drawbacks, mainly related to retainer failure.
Objectives: Nano-ceramic hybrid resin (SprintRay OnX) was employed to fabricate new, customized three-dimensional (3D)-printed lingual retainers, and their debonding forces and failure modes were evaluated.
Materials and methods: Pairs of premolars were embedded in acrylic blocks. Fifty acrylic blocks were divided into five groups, including three different cross-sections of customized 3D-printed wires- round (1 mm), oval (1 × 1.5 mm), and semi-elliptical (1 × 1.5 mm)- and comparative stainless steel multistrand retainers (G and H and Respond). Retainers were bonded to the teeth using Transbond™ LR Light Cure Adhesive. The models were stored in distilled water for 24 hours, simulating the wet intraoral conditions. Debonding forces and failure modes were then evaluated. A vertical debonding force was applied to the interdental area of the bonded retainer. Post-retainer debonding failure mode was examined under a stereomicroscope (×10 magnification).
Results: Semi-elliptical 3D-printed retainers yielded the highest debonding forces, followed by oval 3D-printed retainers, twisted G and H retainers, round 3D-printed retainers, and Respond retainers. The debonding forces of oval and semi-elliptical 3D-printed retainers did not differ significantly. The 3D-printed retainer groups presented predominantly cohesive failure due to the strong adhesion between the 3D-printed resin and adhesive.
Conclusion: Oval and semi-elliptical 3D-printed retainers exhibited favorable debonding forces.