Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Open Access 28-06-2023 | Computer Aided Manufacturing | Original Article

Comparison of six different CAD/CAM retainers vs. the stainless steel twistflex retainer: an in vitro investigation of survival rate and stability

Authors: Christoph J. Roser, Carolien Bauer, Lutz Hodecker, Andreas Zenthöfer, Christopher J. Lux, Stefan Rues

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Abstract

Purpose

To compare failure rates and maximum load capacity (F_max) of six different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) retainers with those of the hand-bent five-stranded stainless steel twistflex retainer.

Materials and methods

Six groups (n = 8 per group) of commercially available CAD/CAM retainers (cobalt–chromium [CoCr], titanium grade 5 [Ti5], nickel–titanium [NiTi], zirconia [ZrO₂], polyetheretherketone [PEEK], and gold) and twistflex retainers were tested for long-term sufficiency and for F_max using a self-developed in vitro model. All retainer models underwent a simulated ageing process of about 15 years (1,200,000 chewing cycles with a force magnitude of 65 N at 45° followed by storage in water at 37 °C for 30 days). If retainers did not debond or break during ageing, their F_max was determined in a universal testing machine. Data were statistically analysed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U‑tests.

Results

Twistflex retainers did not fail (0/8) during ageing and had the highest F_max (445 N ± 51 N). Ti5 retainers were the only CAD/CAM retainers that also did not fail (0/8) and had similar F_max values (374 N ± 62 N). All other CAD/CAM retainers had higher failure rates during ageing and significantly lower F_max values (p < 0.01; ZrO₂: 1/8, 168 N ± 52 N; gold: 3/8, 130 N ± 52 N; NiTi: 5/8, 162 N ± 132 N; CoCr: 6/8, 122 N ± 100 N; PEEK: 8/8, 65 ± 0 N). Failure was due to breakage in the NiTi retainers and debonding in all other retainers.

Conclusion

Twistflex retainers remain the gold standard regarding biomechanical properties and long-term sufficiency. Of the CAD/CAM retainers tested, Ti5 retainers seem to be the most suitable alternative. In contrast, all other CAD/CAM retainers investigated in this study showed high failure rates and had significantly lower F_max values.

Kunz F, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Zeman F, Boldt J (2020) Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: Evaluation of a fully automated cephalometric analysis using a customized convolutional neural network. J Orofac Orthop 81(1):52–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00203-8 CrossRefPubMed

Meyer S (2010) Retrospektive methodische Studie zum Vergleich von digitaler und manueller Modellanalyse in der Kieferorthopädie

Graf S, Vasudavan S, Wilmes B (2018) CAD-CAM design and 3‑dimensional printing of mini-implant retained orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 154(6):877–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.07.013 CrossRefPubMed

Muller-Hartwich R, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Schubert K (2016) Precision of implementing virtual setups for orthodontic treatment using CAD/CAM-fabricated custom archwires. J Orofac Orthop 77(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-015-0001-5 CrossRefPubMed

Sha HN, Choi SH, Yu HS, Hwang CJ, Cha JY, Kim KM (2018) Debonding force and shear bond strength of an array of CAD/CAM-based customized orthodontic brackets, placed by indirect bonding—An In Vitro study. PLoS ONE 13(9):e202952. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202952 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sha HN, Lim SY, Kwon SM, Cha JY (2019) Camouflage treatment for skeletal Class III patient with facial asymmetry using customized bracket based on CAD/CAM virtual orthodontic system: A case report. Angle Orthod. https://doi.org/10.2319/102318-768.1 CrossRefPubMedCentral

Brown MW, Koroluk L, Ko CC, Zhang K, Chen M, Nguyen T (2015) Effectiveness and efficiency of a CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 148(6):1067–1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.029 CrossRefPubMed

Bozelli JV, Bigliazzi R, Barbosa HA, Ortolani CL, Bertoz FA, Faltin Junior K (2013) Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment. Dental Press J Orthod 18(6):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2176-94512013000600009 CrossRefPubMed

Deahl ST, Salome N, Hatch JP, Rugh JD (2007) Practice-based comparison of direct and indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132(6):738–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.037 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Li Y, Mei L, Wei J, Yan X, Zhang X, Zheng W, Li Y (2019) Effectiveness, efficiency and adverse effects of using direct or indirect bonding technique in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 19(1):137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0831-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Roser C, Hodecker LD, Koebel C, Lux CJ, Ruckes D, Rues S, Zenthofer A (2021) Mechanical properties of CAD/CAM-fabricated in comparison to conventionally fabricated functional regulator 3 appliances. Sci Rep 11(1):14719. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94237-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Ercoli F, Tepedino M, Parziale V, Luzi C (2014) A comparative study of two different clear aligner systems. Prog Orthod 15(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0031-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Robertson L, Kaur H, Fagundes NCF, Romanyk D, Major P, Flores Mir C (2020) Effectiveness of clear aligner therapy for orthodontic treatment: A systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 23(2):133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12353 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Aboulazm K, von See C, Othman A (2021) Fixed lingual orthodontic retainer with bilateral missing lateral incisors produced in PEEK material using CAD/CAM technology. J Clin Exp Dent 13(6):e549–e551. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.58035 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Kadhum AS, Alhuwaizi AF (2021) The efficacy of polyether-ether-ketone wire as a retainer following orthodontic treatment. Clin Exp Dent Res 7(3):302–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.377 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kravitz ND, Grauer D, Schumacher P, Jo YM (2017) Memotain: A CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151(4):812–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.11.021 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Gelin E, Seidel L, Bruwier A, Albert A, Charavet C (2020) Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: A randomized controlled trial. Korean J Orthod 50(6):373–382. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2020.50.6.373 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Kartal Y, Kaya B (2019) Fixed orthodontic retainers: a review. Turk J Orthod 32(2):110–114. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18080 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Knaup I, Wagner Y, Wego J, Fritz U, Jager A, Wolf M (2019) Potential impact of lingual retainers on oral health: comparison between conventional twistflex retainers and CAD/CAM fabricated nitinol retainers: A clinical in vitro and in vivo investigation. J Orofac Orthop 80(2):88–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00169-7 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Zreaqat M, Hassan R, Hanoun AF (2017) A CAD/CAM zirconium bar as a bonded mandibular fixed retainer: a novel approach with two-year follow-up. Case Rep Dent 2017:1583403. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1583403 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Wolf M, Schumacher P, Jager F, Wego J, Fritz U, Korbmacher-Steiner H, Jager A, Schauseil M (2015) Novel lingual retainer created using CAD/CAM technology: evaluation of its positioning accuracy. J Orofac Orthop 76(2):164–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-014-0279-8 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kartal Y, Kaya B, Polat-Ozsoy O (2021) Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers: A prospective short-term study. J Orofac Orthop 82(1):32–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00243-5 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Alrawas MB, Kashoura Y, Tosun O, Oz U (2020) Comparing the effects of CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainers on teeth stability and periodontal health with conventional fixed and removable retainers: A randomized clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12425 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Booth FA, Edelman JM, Proffit WR (2008) Twenty-year follow-up of patients with permanently bonded mandibular canine-to-canine retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.023 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Chinvipas N, Hasegawa Y, Terada K (2014) Repeated bonding of fixed retainer increases the risk of enamel fracture. Odontology 102(1):89–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-012-0095-9 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Roser CJ, Rückschloß T, Zenthöfer A, Rammelsberg P, Lux CJ, Rues S (2022) Orthodontic shear bond strength and ultimate load tests of CAD/CAM produced artificial teeth. Clin Oral Invest. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04676-7 CrossRef

27.

Paradella TC, Fava M (2007) Bond strength of adhesive systems to human tooth enamel. Braz Oral Res 21(1):4–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-83242007000100001 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Boldt J, Knapp W, Proff P, Rottner K, Richter EJ (2012) Measurement of tooth and implant mobility under physiological loading conditions. Ann Anat 194(2):185–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2011.09.007 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kiliaridis S, Johansson A, Haraldson T, Omar R, Carlsson GE (1995) Craniofacial morphology occlusal traits, and bite force in persons with advanced occlusal tooth wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107(3):286–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70144-3 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Reicheneder C, Hofrichter B, Faltermeier A, Proff P, Lippold C, Kirschneck C (2014) Shear bond strength of different retainer wires and bonding adhesives in consideration of the pretreatment process. Head Face Med 10:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-10-51 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Bomicke W, Schurz A, Krisam J, Rammelsberg P, Rues S (2016) Durability of resin-zirconia bonds produced using methods available in dental practice. J Adhes Dent 18(1):17–27. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a35517 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kohal RJ, Finke HC, Klaus G (2009) Stability of prototype two-piece zirconia and titanium implants after artificial aging: an in vitro pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 11(4):323–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00116.x CrossRefPubMed

33.

Schwindling FS, Rues S, Schmitter M (2017) Fracture resistance of glazed, full-contour ZLS incisor crowns. J Prosthodont Res 61(3):344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.12.008 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Zachrisson BU (2015) Multistranded wire bonded retainers: from start to success. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 148(5):724–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.015 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Aldrees AM, Al-Mutairi TK, Hakami ZW, Al-Malki MM (2010) Bonded orthodontic retainers: a comparison of initial bond strength of different wire-and-composite combinations. J Orofac Orthop 71(4):290–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-010-9947-5 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Baysal A, Uysal T, Gul N, Alan MB, Ramoglu SI (2012) Comparison of three different orthodontic wires for bonded lingual retainer fabrication. Korean J Orthod 42(1):39–46. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2012.42.1.39 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Cooke ME, Sherriff M (2010) Debonding force and deformation of two multi-stranded lingual retainer wires bonded to incisor enamel: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 32(6):741–746. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq017 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Mohlhenrich SC, Jager F, Jager A, Schumacher P, Wolf M, Fritz U, Bourauel C (2018) Biomechanical properties of CAD/CAM-individualized nickel-titanium lingual retainers: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 79(5):309–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-018-0144-2 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Milheiro A, de Jager N, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ (2015) In vitro debonding of orthodontic retainers analyzed with finite element analysis. Eur J Orthod 37(5):491–496. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju074 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Helkimo E, Carlsson GE, Helkimo M (1977) Bite force and state of dentition. Acta Odontol Scand 35(6):297–303. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357709064128 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Kiliaridis S, Kjellberg H, Wenneberg B, Engstrom C (1993) The relationship between maximal bite force, bite force endurance, and facial morphology during growth—A cross-sectional study. Acta Odontol Scand 51(5):323–331. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359309040583 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Regalo SC, Santos CM, Vitti M, Regalo CA, de Vasconcelos PB, Mestriner W Jr., Semprini M, Dias FJ, Hallak JE, Siessere S (2008) Evaluation of molar and incisor bite force in indigenous compared with white population in Brazil. Arch Oral Biol 53(3):282–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2007.10.003 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of six different CAD/CAM retainers vs. the stainless steel twistflex retainer: an in vitro investigation of survival rate and stability
Authors: Christoph J. Roser
Carolien Bauer
Lutz Hodecker
Andreas Zenthöfer
Christopher J. Lux
Stefan Rues
Publication date: 28-06-2023
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Keywords: Computer Aided Manufacturing
Computer Aided Design
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00486-y

Keynote Webinar | Spotlight on Diet and Diabetes

Springer Medicine

Comparison of six different CAD/CAM retainers vs. the stainless steel twistflex retainer: an in vitro investigation of survival rate and stability

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote Webinar | Spotlight on Diet and Diabetes

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content