Evaluation of Compatibility of Different Attachment Types Used in Orthodontic Clear Aligners with Electron Microscopy.

IF 3.1 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Can Sever, Can Arslan
{"title":"Evaluation of Compatibility of Different Attachment Types Used in Orthodontic Clear Aligners with Electron Microscopy.","authors":"Can Sever, Can Arslan","doi":"10.3390/dj13080379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: The effectiveness of clear aligner therapy depends significantly on the precision of force delivery through the aligner-attachment interface. This study aimed to evaluate the microscopic compatibility between different orthodontic clear aligner materials (Duran+ and Zendura FLX) and attachment designs (rectangular and optimized) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). <b>Methods</b>: Fifty-six samples were divided into four groups: rectangular attachments with Duran+ aligners (n = 14), rectangular attachments with Zendura FLX aligners (n = 14), optimized attachments with Duran+ aligners (n = 14), and optimized attachments with Zendura FLX aligners (n = 14). Attachments were bonded to bovine incisors using standardized protocols. Clear aligners were thermoformed at 220 °C for 40 s. Cross-sectional samples were analyzed using SEM at 250× magnification. Gap measurements were taken at seven points for rectangular attachments and five points for optimized attachments. <b>Results</b>: Gap measurements ranged from 14.75 ± 1.41 µm to 91.07 ± 3.11 µm. Zendura FLX demonstrated significantly better adaptation than Duran+ with rectangular attachments (42.10 ± 1.07 µm vs. 44.52 ± 1.51 µm, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Optimized attachments showed better overall adaptation than rectangular attachments. All combinations showed regional variation with the largest gaps at gingival borders (67.18-91.07 µm) and the smallest at flat buccal surfaces (14.75-20.98 µm). <b>Conclusions</b>: Perfect adaptation was not achieved with any material-attachment combination tested. Material selection and attachment design significantly influence microscopic adaptation, with multi-layer materials and optimized geometries showing superior performance. These findings provide mechanical explanations for clinical limitations in clear aligner therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12385661/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13080379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The effectiveness of clear aligner therapy depends significantly on the precision of force delivery through the aligner-attachment interface. This study aimed to evaluate the microscopic compatibility between different orthodontic clear aligner materials (Duran+ and Zendura FLX) and attachment designs (rectangular and optimized) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Methods: Fifty-six samples were divided into four groups: rectangular attachments with Duran+ aligners (n = 14), rectangular attachments with Zendura FLX aligners (n = 14), optimized attachments with Duran+ aligners (n = 14), and optimized attachments with Zendura FLX aligners (n = 14). Attachments were bonded to bovine incisors using standardized protocols. Clear aligners were thermoformed at 220 °C for 40 s. Cross-sectional samples were analyzed using SEM at 250× magnification. Gap measurements were taken at seven points for rectangular attachments and five points for optimized attachments. Results: Gap measurements ranged from 14.75 ± 1.41 µm to 91.07 ± 3.11 µm. Zendura FLX demonstrated significantly better adaptation than Duran+ with rectangular attachments (42.10 ± 1.07 µm vs. 44.52 ± 1.51 µm, p < 0.001). Optimized attachments showed better overall adaptation than rectangular attachments. All combinations showed regional variation with the largest gaps at gingival borders (67.18-91.07 µm) and the smallest at flat buccal surfaces (14.75-20.98 µm). Conclusions: Perfect adaptation was not achieved with any material-attachment combination tested. Material selection and attachment design significantly influence microscopic adaptation, with multi-layer materials and optimized geometries showing superior performance. These findings provide mechanical explanations for clinical limitations in clear aligner therapy.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

用电子显微镜评价正畸透明矫正器中不同类型附着体的相容性。
背景/目的:清除矫正器治疗的有效性在很大程度上取决于通过矫正器-附着界面的力传递的精度。本研究旨在通过扫描电子显微镜(SEM)评估不同正畸透明矫正器材料(Duran+和Zendura FLX)与附着体设计(矩形和优化)之间的微观相容性。方法:56份样本分为4组:Duran+矫直器矩形附着体(n = 14)、Zendura FLX矫直器矩形附着体(n = 14)、Duran+矫直器优化附着体(n = 14)、Zendura FLX矫直器优化附着体(n = 14)。采用标准化方案将附着物粘接到牛门牙上。透明对准器在220°C下热成型40 s。用250倍放大的扫描电镜对横截面样品进行分析。对矩形附件进行了7点间隙测量,对优化附件进行了5点间隙测量。结果:间隙测量范围为14.75±1.41µm ~ 91.07±3.11µm。Zendura FLX的适应性明显优于Duran+(42.10±1.07µm vs. 44.52±1.51µm, p < 0.001)。优化后的附着体整体适应性优于矩形附着体。所有组合均存在区域差异,龈缘间隙最大(67.18 ~ 91.07µm),颊平面间隙最小(14.75 ~ 20.98µm)。结论:任何一种材料-附着体组合试验均不能达到完美的适应性。材料选择和附件设计显著影响微观适应性,多层材料和优化的几何形状表现出优越的性能。这些发现为清晰对准器治疗的临床局限性提供了力学解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信