Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2019
Scanning electron microscopy analysis of aligner fitting on anchorage attachments.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mantovani Edoardo, Castroflorio Enrico, Rossini Gabriele, Garino Francesco, Cugliari Giovanni, Deregibus Andrea, Castroflorio Tommaso
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aims of the study were (1) to evaluate the fitting of three different aligners (Invisalign [Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA], CA Clear Aligner [Scheu-Dental, Iserlohn, Germany] and F22 [Sweden&Martina, Due Carrare, Italy]) on anchorage attachments using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and (2) to analyze the influence of 2 different types of resin used to build attachments on aligner fitting.
METHODS: Using STL files of a patient, six resin casts were obtained and rectangular attachments were bonded on them. Conventional bulk-fill resin was used to build upper attachments while a flowable resin was used to build the lower ones. Passive aligners were adapted on each cast and then sectioned buccolingually. Microphotographs of the obtained sections were performed using a SEM and then micrometric measurements of aligner fitting on anchorage attachments were recorded.
RESULTS: Analyzing the overall fitting of upper arch aligners, Invisalign provided a significantly better fitting with respect to F22 (P = 0.009); differences were not significant when comparing Invisalign with CA Clear Aligner, and CA Clear Aligner with F22. Analyzing the overall fitting of lower arch aligners, F22 provided a significantly better fitting with respect to CA Clear Aligner (P = 0.008) and Invisalign (P = 0.011). The analysis showed a significantly better fitting on upper attachments, built using conventional bulk-fill resin (P = 0.034).
CONCLUSIONS: Invisalign, CA Clear Aligner and F22 have comparable performance in terms of fitting on anchorage attachments. Conventional bulk-fill resin provides the best fitting on anchorage attachments.
METHODS: Using STL files of a patient, six resin casts were obtained and rectangular attachments were bonded on them. Conventional bulk-fill resin was used to build upper attachments while a flowable resin was used to build the lower ones. Passive aligners were adapted on each cast and then sectioned buccolingually. Microphotographs of the obtained sections were performed using a SEM and then micrometric measurements of aligner fitting on anchorage attachments were recorded.
RESULTS: Analyzing the overall fitting of upper arch aligners, Invisalign provided a significantly better fitting with respect to F22 (P = 0.009); differences were not significant when comparing Invisalign with CA Clear Aligner, and CA Clear Aligner with F22. Analyzing the overall fitting of lower arch aligners, F22 provided a significantly better fitting with respect to CA Clear Aligner (P = 0.008) and Invisalign (P = 0.011). The analysis showed a significantly better fitting on upper attachments, built using conventional bulk-fill resin (P = 0.034).
CONCLUSIONS: Invisalign, CA Clear Aligner and F22 have comparable performance in terms of fitting on anchorage attachments. Conventional bulk-fill resin provides the best fitting on anchorage attachments.