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。

IF 3.1 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Can Sever, Can Arslan
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。

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

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

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

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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