Alexandre Fausto da Veiga Jardim, Jairo Curado de Freitas, Carlos Estrela
{"title":"Surface wear and adhesive failure of resin attachments used in clear aligner orthodontic treatment.","authors":"Alexandre Fausto da Veiga Jardim, Jairo Curado de Freitas, Carlos Estrela","doi":"10.1007/s00056-023-00471-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluated adhesive and cohesive failures and the surface wear of attachments employed in clear aligner treatment (CAT) using three-dimensional (3D) superimposition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In all, 3D models of 150 teeth were obtained from intraoral scans from patients undergoing CAT with at least 4 months between each scan. Of the initial sample, 25 teeth were discarded, and 125 teeth were included in the study. Superimpositions of each individual tooth at the first and second time points were made using computer-aided design (CAD) software (Meshmixer; Autodesk, Mill Valley, CA, USA). Analyses were performed to compare surface wear and failures related to type of attachment (optimized/conventional), dental group (molars/premolars/anterior teeth), and arch (mandibular/maxillary). Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests were applied with significance set at 5%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More surface wear was observed in conventional attachments, mandibular and anterior teeth with statistical significance for surface wear on the distal surface of conventional attachments (p < 0.05). Cohesive failure was observed in 10% of attachments, occurring most frequently on optimized attachments and molar teeth. Adhesive failure was observed in 10% of the samples, more frequently on conventional attachments and posterior teeth.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Attachment type (conventional vs. optimized) was significantly correlated with surface wear on the distal surface of the attachment. Arch (mandibular or maxillary) and group of teeth (anterior or posterior) showed no correlation with surface wear. Failure, both adhesive and cohesive, correlated with attachment type and group of teeth, but not with the arch in which they were located.</p>","PeriodicalId":54776,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00471-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated adhesive and cohesive failures and the surface wear of attachments employed in clear aligner treatment (CAT) using three-dimensional (3D) superimposition.
Methods: In all, 3D models of 150 teeth were obtained from intraoral scans from patients undergoing CAT with at least 4 months between each scan. Of the initial sample, 25 teeth were discarded, and 125 teeth were included in the study. Superimpositions of each individual tooth at the first and second time points were made using computer-aided design (CAD) software (Meshmixer; Autodesk, Mill Valley, CA, USA). Analyses were performed to compare surface wear and failures related to type of attachment (optimized/conventional), dental group (molars/premolars/anterior teeth), and arch (mandibular/maxillary). Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests were applied with significance set at 5%.
Results: More surface wear was observed in conventional attachments, mandibular and anterior teeth with statistical significance for surface wear on the distal surface of conventional attachments (p < 0.05). Cohesive failure was observed in 10% of attachments, occurring most frequently on optimized attachments and molar teeth. Adhesive failure was observed in 10% of the samples, more frequently on conventional attachments and posterior teeth.
Conclusion: Attachment type (conventional vs. optimized) was significantly correlated with surface wear on the distal surface of the attachment. Arch (mandibular or maxillary) and group of teeth (anterior or posterior) showed no correlation with surface wear. Failure, both adhesive and cohesive, correlated with attachment type and group of teeth, but not with the arch in which they were located.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics provides orthodontists and dentists who are also actively interested in orthodontics, whether in university clinics or private practice, with highly authoritative and up-to-date information based on experimental and clinical research. The journal is one of the leading publications for the promulgation of the results of original work both in the areas of scientific and clinical orthodontics and related areas. All articles undergo peer review before publication. The German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO) also publishes in the journal important communications, statements and announcements.