journal article·2019-02

Nanomechanical properties, surface topography, and color stability of fiber-reinforced composite orthodontic retainers

Ibrahim Alshahrani, Moshabab A Asiry, Mohamad K Altwijry, Sangeetha N Premanath, Ravikumar Ramakrishnaiah, Bangalore H Durgesh

Polymers and Polymer Composites· Volume 27· Issue 2
Publisher page

Abstract

The present study investigated the nanomechanical properties, surface topography, and color alterations of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) orthodontic retainers. Two FRC orthodontic retainer materials (glass fiber reinforced (group 1) and polyethylene fiber reinforced (group 2)) were evaluated. Nanomechanical properties (nano-hardness and elastic modulus), surface roughness (Ra), and color stability of FRC retainers at baseline and after 2 years of simulated aging were evaluated. The data collected were analyzed using analyses of variance, followed by Tukey’s honestly significant difference test for post hoc comparisons at the significance level of p < 0.05. Group 1 specimens exhibited highest hardness (0.16 ± 0.06) and elastic modulus (2.68 ± 0.17) at baseline, and group 2 specimens showed lowest hardness (0.09 ± 0.16) and elastic modulus (2.19 ± 0.36) after aging. Significant difference in hardness and elastic modulus was observed between the groups at baseline and after aging ( p < 0.05).The aged specimens demonstrated decreased hardness and elastic modulus values compared to baseline specimens, but the differences were not significant ( p > 0.05). Group 2 specimens exhibited increased Ra at baseline (0.46 ± 0.79) and aging (0.84 ± 0.94), and the least Ra values were observed with group 1 specimens at baseline (0.31 ± 0.87) and aging (0.59 ± 0.65). There was a significant color alteration of the specimens from baseline to aging in both the groups ( p < 0.05). However, group 1 specimens showed noticeable color change, and group 2 showed appreciable color change. Glass fiber-reinforced FRC orthodontic retainer exhibited superior properties compared to polyethylene fiber-reinforced FRC. Accelerated aging decreases surface hardness of the polymer matrix and increases Ra and discoloration of the FRC retainer materials.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · Dental Research and COVID-19

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia

Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Dental Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Dental Health Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Department of Biomaterials Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Funding

Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University

References (39)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1088/2053-1591/aaabe510.1088/2053-1591/aaabe5 ↗
2. Graber T, Vanarsdall V. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier, 2005.
3. Butler J, Dowling P. Orthodontic bonded retainers. J Ir Dent Assoc 2005; 51: 29–32.
4. 10.1179/14653120522502162410.1179/146531205225021624 ↗
5. 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70333-110.1016/S0889-5406(99)70333-1 ↗
6. Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod 1991; 25: 619–630.
7. Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded retainers: update and clinical advice. J Clin Orthod 2008; 41: 728–737; quiz 49.
8. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, . Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 29: CD002283.
9. Foek DL, Özcan M, Krebs E, . Adhesive properties of bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire versus fiber-reinforced composites. J Adhes Dent 2009; 11: 381–390.
10. 10.1016/j.cden.2006.12.00410.1016/j.cden.2006.12.004 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.02210.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.022 ↗
12. Garoushi S, Lassila L, Vallittu P. Fibre-reinforced composite in clinical dentistry. Chin J Dent Res 2008; 11: 101–108.
13. 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.02010.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020 ↗
14. 10.1016/S0261-3069(98)00007-710.1016/S0261-3069(98)00007-7 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.00910.1016/j.dental.2014.07.009 ↗
16. Mangoush E, Säilynoja E, Prinssi R, . Comparative evaluation between glass and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites: a review of the current literature. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9: e1408–e1417.
17. 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.00910.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.009 ↗
18. 10.3233/BME-16159210.3233/BME-161592 ↗
19. Nimeroff I. Colorimetry. National Bureau of Standards Monograph, 1968, Vol. 104.
20. 10.4103/2321-3825.17221910.4103/2321-3825.172219 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.01110.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.011 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.dental.2013.09.00610.1016/j.dental.2013.09.006 ↗
23. Yetkiner E, Ozcan M, Wegehaupt FJ, . Effect of a low-viscosity adhesive resin on the adhesion of metal brackets to enamel etched with hydrochloric or phosphoric acid combined with conventional adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15: 575–581.
24. 10.1201/9781420075533-3810.1201/9781420075533-38 ↗
25. Fruits TJ, Duncanson MGJr, Miranda FJ. In vitro weathering of selected direct esthetic restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1997; 28: 409–414.
26. 10.2319/112106-473.110.2319/112106-473.1 ↗
27. Oshagh M, Heidary S, Nazhvani AD, . Evaluation of histological impacts of three types of orthodontic fixed retainers on periodontium of rabbits. J Dent 2014; 15: 104–111.
28. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.11.03810.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.11.038 ↗
29. 10.4041/kjod.2013.43.4.18610.4041/kjod.2013.43.4.186 ↗
30. 10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80111-X10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80111-X ↗
31. 10.1002/jbm.b.3034910.1002/jbm.b.30349 ↗
32. 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1993.tb01640.x10.1111/j.1365-2842.1993.tb01640.x ↗
33. 10.2319/021308-88.110.2319/021308-88.1 ↗
34. 10.1002/jbm.b.1001210.1002/jbm.b.10012 ↗
35. 10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-310.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3 ↗
36. 10.1038/sj.bdj.481088110.1038/sj.bdj.4810881 ↗
37. 10.1016/0142-9612(96)85755-310.1016/0142-9612(96)85755-3 ↗
38. 10.2174/187421060090301022710.2174/1874210600903010227 ↗
39. 10.1155/2018/290869610.1155/2018/2908696 ↗