Comparison of the different retention appliances produced using CAD/CAM and conventional methods and different surface roughening methods

Aycan, Merve; Göymen, Merve

doi:10.1007/s10103-018-2585-7

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Memotain was developed as an alternative to multistrand stainless steel retainers. 9 Aycan and Goymen 28 reported no deformation in Memotain, while significant deformation was observed in the dead-soft wire. This was attributed to the shape memory feature of this retainer provided by its nickel-titanium content.…”

Section: Stability Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability

Adanur-Atmaca¹,

Çokakoğlu²,

Öztürk³

2021

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability of mandibular anterior teeth at the 1-year follow-up. Materials and Methods One hundred thirty-two patients were randomly allocated to four groups using different lingual retainers: group 1, 0.016 × 0.022-in dead-soft wire; group 2, 0.0215-in 5-strand stainless steel wire; group 3, 0.014 × 0.014-in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing nitinol retainer (Memotain); group 4, connected bonding pads. Plaque, gingival, and calculus indexes were used to evaluate periodontal health, and Little's irregularity index, intercanine width, and arch length measurements were performed to evaluate stability. All measurements were performed at each time point (debonding and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Results The mean value of the gingival index obtained in group 3 was lower than the mean value for all other groups. The mean value of the calculus index was the lowest in group 3, and there was a significant difference between group 3 and groups 1 and 2. No differences were found among the groups in terms of plaque index, intercanine width, and arch length. The least irregularity was obtained in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences between these groups and groups 1 and 4. Conclusions Gingival inflammation and calculus accumulation were the lowest in group 3 (Memotain). The irregularity for Memotain and stainless steel retainers was less than or the other groups. However, no clinically significant worsening of periodontal health or relapse were seen in any groups after 1 year.

show abstract

Section: Stability Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability

Adanur-Atmaca¹,

Çokakoğlu²,

Öztürk³

2021

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…23 The early failure peak can be explained by the fact that tooth mobility is higher just after the completion of orthodontic treatment than it is later in the retention period. 24 Interestingly, in an in vitro study, Aycan and Goymen 9 investigated the type of debonding that occurred in a multi-stranded stainless-steel wire group when compared to a CAD/CAM nitinol wire group. They demonstrated, in contrast to our findings, that the higher flexibility of the CAD/CAM nitinol wire leads to more occurrences of enamel-adhesive interface debondings than wire-adhesive interface debondings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these studies, nitinol retainers designed and manufactured by CAD/CAM technology demonstrated better results in terms of oral health indices and biofilm formation. Additionally, an in vitro study by Aycan and Goymen 9 concluded that CAD/CAM-fabricated wires were a relevant alternative to stainless-steel wires since the CAD/CAM group showed no deformation due to the nickel-titanium content.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: A randomized controlled trial

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized nitinol retainers with standard stainless-steel fixed retainers over a 12-month study period. Methods This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted on 62 patients randomly allocated to a control group that received stainless-steel retainers or a test group that received customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium retainers. Four time points were defined retainer placement (T0) and 1-month (T1), 6-month (T2), and 12-month (T3) follow-up appointments. At each time point, Little’s irregularity index (LII) (primary endpoint) and dental stability measurements such as intercanine width were recorded in addition to assessment of periodontal parameters. Radiological measurements such as the incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA) were recorded at T0 and T3. Failure events (wire integrity or debonding) were assessed at each time point. Results From T0 to T3, LII and other dental measurements showed no significant differences between the two groups. The data for periodontal parameters remained stable over the study period, except for the gingival index, which was slightly, but significantly, higher in the test group at T3 ( p = 0.039). The IMPA angle showed no intergroup difference. The two groups showed no significant difference in debonding events. Conclusions This RCT conducted over a 12-month period demonstrated no significant difference between customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainers and standard stainless-steel lingual retainers in terms of dental anterior stability and retainer survival. Both retainers eventually appeared to be equally effective in maintaining periodontal health.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the gap between the retainer and the teeth widens, which increases patient discomfort and the possibility of occlusal interference [ 14 ]. Regarding the stability of the retainer, Aycan et al [ 15 ] noted the malalignment of teeth and spacing between teeth due to wire deformation as disadvantages of the multistranded wire. Shaughnessy et al [ 13 ] reported that when a multistranded wire is cut, untwisting occurs at the end of the wire due to internal tension, which can lead to torque discrepancy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and stability of computer-aided customized lingual fixed retainer: a pilot study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With advances in digital technology, new types of lingual fixed retainers are being developed. However, there are few studies that quantitatively evaluate the accuracy and stability of lingual fixed retainers. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and stability of two types of computer-aided customized lingual fixed retainers and a conventional lingual fixed retainer. Methods A total of 10 maxillary and 10 mandibular duplicated dental models were selected, and then, three types of retainers were fabricated on the canine-to-canine area for each model. To evaluate accuracy, wire clearance at interproximal area (WCI) was measured using superimposition analysis. Initial flatness deformation was also measured for vertical distortion of retainers. Lateral width, anteroposterior length, and flatness deformation were measured at three-time points for stability assessment. Thermocycling was used to induce 6 months of time flow. Results The custom-bent group showed significantly higher WCI than the custom-cut and manual groups in the maxillary arch (P = 0.002). The custom-cut group showed significantly less flatness deformation, which was followed by the custom-bent and manual groups in both the maxillary and mandibular arch (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in stability between the three retainer groups during 5100 cycles of thermocycling (corresponding to 6-month period). Conclusions Since there was no difference in stability between the three groups, it is recommended to use custom-cut type retainers in light of accuracy. However, accuracy and stability are not the only factors to consider when selecting type of retainers. Because each retainer has advantages and disadvantages, the type of retainers should be decided in consideration of the clinical environment.

show abstract

Comparison of the different retention appliances produced using CAD/CAM and conventional methods and different surface roughening methods

Cited by 5 publications

References 31 publications

Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability

Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability

Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: A randomized controlled trial

Accuracy and stability of computer-aided customized lingual fixed retainer: a pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About