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.

Scanning electron microscopy analysis of aligner fitting on anchorage attachments

Cugliari G.;Deregibus A.;Castroflorio T.
Last
2019-01-01

Abstract

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.
2019
80
2
79
87
Anchor teeth; Auxiliaries; Composite resin; Orthodontic tooth movement; Orthodontic treatment; Dental Casting Technique; Humans; Malocclusion, Angle Class I; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Resins, Synthetic; Tooth Movement Techniques; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable
Mantovani E.; Castroflorio E.; Rossini G.; Garino F.; Cugliari G.; Deregibus A.; Castroflorio T.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Mantovani2019_Article_ScanningElectronMicroscopyAnal.pdf

Accesso riservato

Descrizione: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics Volume 80, Issue 2, 6 March 2019, Pages 79-87
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 869.59 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
869.59 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
JOOF-D-18-00062_R3 (1).pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione 1.69 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.69 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1738753
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 12
  • Scopus 28
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 23
social impact