Korean J Orthod.  2013 Aug;43(4):186-192. 10.4041/kjod.2013.43.4.186.

Fatigue resistance, debonding force, and failure type of fiber-reinforced composite, polyethylene ribbon-reinforced, and braided stainless steel wire lingual retainers in vitro

• Foek DL
• Yetkiner E
• Ozcan M

• KMID: 2272254
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.4.186

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To analyze the fatigue resistance, debonding force, and failure type of fiber-reinforced composite, polyethylene ribbon-reinforced, and braided stainless steel wire lingual retainers in vitro.
METHODS
Roots of human mandibular central incisors were covered with silicone, mimicking the periodontal ligament, and embedded in polymethylmethacrylate. The specimens (N = 50), with two teeth each, were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10/group) according to the retainer materials: (1) Interlig (E-glass), (2) everStick Ortho (E-glass), (3) DentaPreg Splint (S2-glass), (4) Ribbond (polyethylene), and (5) Quad Cat wire (stainless steel). After the recommended adhesive procedures, the retainers were bonded to the teeth by using flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow). The teeth were subjected to 10,00,000 cyclic loads (8 Hz, 3 - 100 N, 45degrees angle, under 37 +/- 3degrees C water) at their incisoproximal contact, and debonding forces were measured with a universal testing machine (1 mm/min crosshead speed). Failure sites were examined under a stereomicroscope (x40 magnification). Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS
All the specimens survived the cyclic loading. Their mean debonding forces were not significantly different (p > 0.05). The DentaPreg Splint group (80%) showed the highest incidence of complete adhesive debonding, followed by the Interlig group (60%). The everStick Ortho group (80%) presented predominantly partial adhesive debonding. The Quad Cat wire group (50%) presented overlying composite detachment.
CONCLUSIONS
Cyclic loading did not cause debonding. The retainers presented similar debonding forces but different failure types. Braided stainless steel wire retainers presented the most repairable failure type.

Keyword

Lingual; Bonding; Relapse; Retention

MeSH Terms

Adenine
Adhesives
Animals
Carbamates
Cats
Collodion
Composite Resins
Deoxycytidine
Drug Combinations
Fatigue
Humans
Incidence
Incisor
Organophosphonates
Periodontal Ligament
Polyethylene
Polyethylenes
Polymethyl Methacrylate
Quinolones
Recurrence
Retention (Psychology)
Silicones
Splints
Stainless Steel
Thiazoles
Tooth
Elvitegravir, Cobicistat, Emtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug Combination
Adenine
Adhesives
Carbamates
Collodion
Composite Resins
Deoxycytidine
Drug Combinations
Organophosphonates
Polyethylene
Polyethylenes
Polymethyl Methacrylate
Quinolones
Silicones
Stainless Steel
Thiazoles

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Representative photographs of human mandibular central incisor pairs embedded in polymethylmethacrylate up to the cementoenamel junction to receive bonded lingual retainers: A, lingual and B, proximal views.

• 

  Figure 2 The loading jig used for measuring the debonding force of the bonded lingual retainers.

• 

  Figure 3 Mean and standard deviation of the debonding force of the bonded lingual retainers. See Table 1 for a detailed description of the groups.

Reference

1. Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139:614–621.

2. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108:207–213.

3. Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1991; 25:619–630.

4. Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod. 1997; 19:501–509.

5. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: a systematic review. J Orthod. 2006; 33:205–212.

6. Burstone CJ, Kuhlberg AJ. Fiber-reinforced composites in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod. 2000; 34:271–279.

7. Foek DL, Ozcan M, Krebs E, Sandham A. Adhesive properties of bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber-reinforced composites. J Adhes Dent. 2009; 11:381–390.

8. Lumsden KW, Saidler G, McColl JH. Breakage incidence with direct-bonded lingual retainers. Br J Orthod. 1999; 26:191–194.

9. Lie Sam Foek DJ, Ozcan M, Verkerke GJ, Sandham A, Dijkstra PU. Survival of flexible, braided, bonded stainless steel lingual retainers: a historic cohort study. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30:199–204.

10. Lee KD, Mills CM. Bond failure rates for V-loop vs straight wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:502–506.

11. Taner T, Aksu M. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34:470–474.

12. Cooke ME, Sherriff M. Debonding force and deformation of two multi-stranded lingual retainer wires bonded to incisor enamel: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32:741–746.

13. Rose E, Frucht S, Jonas IE. Clinical comparison of a multistranded wire and a direct-bonded polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite used for lingual retention. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33:579–583.

14. Tacken MP, Cosyn J, De Wilde P, Aerts J, Govaerts E, Vannet BV. Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32:117–123.

15. Bolla E, Cozzani M, Doldo T, Fontana M. Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: a comparison between glass fiber-reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int Orthod. 2012; 10:16–28.

16. Kumbuloglu O, Saracoglu A, Ozcan M. Pilot study of unidirectional E-glass fibre-reinforced composite resin splints: up to 4.5-year clinical follow-up. J Dent. 2011; 39:871–877.

17. Meiers JC, Kazemi RB, Donadio M. The influence of fiber reinforcement of composites on shear bond strengths to enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:388–393.

18. Scribante A, Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF. Effect of various adhesive systems on the shear bond strength of fiber-reinforced composite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130:224–227.

19. Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. Ex vivo fracture resistance of direct resin composite complete crowns with and without posts on maxillary premolars. Int Endod J. 2005; 38:230–237.

20. Ozcan M, Valandro LF. Fracture strength of endodontically-treated teeth restored with post and cores and composite cores only. Oper Dent. 2009; 34:429–436.

21. Baldissara P, Ozcan M, Melilli D, Valandro LF. Effect of cyclic loading on fracture strength and microleakage of a quartz fiber dowel with different adhesive, cement and resin core material combinations. Minerva Stomatol. 2010; 59:407–414.

22. McCabe JF, Carrick TE, Chadwick RG, Walls AW. Alternative approaches to evaluating the fatigue characteristics of materials. Dent Mater. 1990; 6:24–28.

23. Ruse ND, Shew R, Feduik D. In vitro fatigue testing of a dental bonding system on enamel. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995; 29:411–415.

24. Grandini S, Chieffi N, Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Fatigue resistance and structural integrity of different types of fiber posts. Dent Mater J. 2008; 27:687–694.

25. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Ravnholt G, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Resistance to cyclic loading of teeth restored with posts. Clin Oral Investig. 2005; 9:84–90.

26. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005; 84:118–132.