Shear bond strength of three different fixed retainers: Stainless steel wires versus fiber reinforced composite (An in Vitro study)

Authors

  • Anees Mahmood Mudhir Department of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2021.13

Keywords:

Shear bond strength, Lingual retainer wire, Fiber reinforced composite, Adhesive

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Long term preservation of lingual retainer after active orthodontic treatment is mandatory in oral cavity to prevent teeth relapse to its original place before treatment which is documented in orthodontics and considered as a success factor of lingual bonded retainers. This in vitro study is conducted to evaluate and compare the bond strength (shear bond strength) of three different fixed lingual retainers using a specific retainer composite and fracture modes of different retainer’s wire/adhesive combination.

Methods: One‐hundred twenty extracted human upper premolar teeth (60 pairs) were divided into three groups(40 for each group) bonded with three different types of retainer wires (db Straight‐8strand flattened nickel free braided wire 0.028 x 0.008 inches UK, 3M 0.0175; multi‐stranded wire and Speed korean orthodontic fiber reinforced splint (2 mm x 200 mm ‐ FS‐2) which were bonded to the lingual surface of the teeth as fixed retainers by specific adhesives (Transbond LR, 3M). The specimens were debonded using a Universal Instron machine to measure shear bond strength. The site of failure was recorded for each specimen was calculated. Statistical analyses were provided using one‐way analysis of variance with inter‐group comparison using the least significant difference.

Results: There was a statistically high significant difference among all three retainers groups (p < 0.001); db Straight 8 braid flat soft wire debonding force was (130±29.6N), followed by Speed fiber reinforced splint group (107.5±18.9 N), whereas the minimum was observed 3M Unitek coxial multi strand wire group(76±27.6 N).The site of failure was predominantly at the wire composite interface except in FRC was in enamel/composite interface.

Conclusion: db straight‐8 wire delivered higher shear bond strength, followed by fiber reinforced splint retainer group, whereas 3M multi‐strand wire had the least shear bond strength.

References

Cobourne MT, DiBiase AT: Handbook of Orthodontics. Edinburgh, New York: Mosby; 2009;2:312‐14.

Reicheneder C, Hofrichter B, Faltermeier A, Proff P, Lippold C, Kirschneck C: Shear bond strength of different retainer wires and bonding adhesives in consideration of the pretreatment process, Head & Face Medicine,2014 Nov 28;10:51.

Thamer Adel Alkhadra, A Simplified Technique For Chairside Bonding Of Lingual Retainer.2011. Jpda vol. 20 No.03.

Bearn DR, McCabe JF, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire‐composite interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 111:67‐74.

Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long‐term effectiveness of canine‐to‐canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011; 139:614‐21.

Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995; 108:207‐13.

Littlewood SJ, Millett DC, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: A sys‐ tematic review. J Orthod 2006; 33:205‐12.

Karaman A I , Polat O , Büyükyilmaz T . A practical method of fabricating a lingual retainer. Ameri‐ can Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2003: 124: 327 – 70.

Aldrees AM, Al‐Mutairi TK, Hakami ZW, Al‐Malki MM. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a comparison of initial bond strength of different wire‐and‐composite combinations. J Orofac Orthop. 2010;71:290–99.

Foek DL, 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.

Tacken,M. P. E. Cosyn. J, De WildeP., AertsJ., GovaertsE., and Vannet,B. V. “Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi‐centre study,” European Journal of Orthodontics, 2010 vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 117–123.

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; 130:224‑7.

KaramanA. I., KirN., and BelliS., “Four applications of reinforced polyethylene fiber material in orthodontic practice,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,, 2002 vol. 121, no. 6, pp. 650–654.

Vallittu P. K., “Flexural properties of acrylic resin polymers reinforced with unidirectional and woven glass fibers,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1999, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 318–326.

Berk N, Basaran G and Ozer T. Comparison of sandblasting, laser irradiation, and conventional acid etching for orthodontic bonding of molar tubes. Eur J Orthod. 2008: 30;183–89.

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 Dec; 32(6):741‐6.

Artun J. &Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid‐etchenamel pretreatment. American journal of orthodontics 1984, 85, 333‐340.

Foek D.L, OzcanM, KrebsE, and SandhamA. “Adhesive properties of bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber‐reinforced composites,” The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2009, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 381-390.

Scribante A, Sfondrini MF, Broggini S, D’Allocco M, and Gandini S .Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multi stranded Wires and Direct‐Bond Glass Fiber‐Reinforced Composite Splints. International Journal of Dentistry. 2011(1): 548356.

Reicheneder CA, Gedrange T, Lange A, Baumert U, Proff P: Shear and tensile bond strength comparison of various contemporary orthodontic adhesive systems: an in‐vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009, 135:422. E1‐6; discussion 422–3.

Sifakakis I, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Residual stress analysis of fixed retainer wires after in vitro loading: can mastication induced stresses produce an unfavorable effect? Biomed Tech (Berl). 2015; 60:617–622.

Singh A, Kapoor S, Mehrotra P, Bhagchandani J, Agarwal S. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Different Wire‐Composite Combinations for Lingual Retention: An in Vitro Study. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society; 2019; 53(2) 135–140.

Bolla E, Cozzani M, Doldo T, Fontana M. Failure evaluation after a 6‐year retention period: a com‐ parison between glass fiber‐reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int Orthod. 2012 Mar; 10(1):16‐28.

Sfondrini MF, Fraticelli D, Castellazzi L, Scribante A, Gandini P. Clinical evaluation of bond failures and survival between mandibular canine‐to‐canine retainers made of flexible spiral wire and fiber‐reinforced composite. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014 Apr 1; 6(2):e145‐9.

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; 39:871‐7.

Alavi Sand Mamavi T. Evaluation of load deflection properties of fiber‐reinforced composites and its comparison with stainless steel wires. Dent Res J. 2014; 11(2):234‐9.

Foek DL, Yetkiner E, Ozcan M. Fatigue resistance, Debonding force, and failure type of fiber‐reinforced composite, polyethylene ribbon‐reinforced, and braided stainless steel wire lingual retainers in vitro. Korean J Orthod. 2013 Aug; 43 (4):186‐92.

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; 139:614‐21.

Radlanski RJ and Zain ND. Stability of the bonded lingual wire retainer‐a study of the initial bond strength. J Orofac Orthop. 2004 Jul; 65(4):321‐35.

Sobouti F, Rakhshan V, Saravi MG, Zamanian A, Shariati M. Two‐year survival analysis of twisted wire fixed retainer versus spiral wire and fiberreinforced composite retainers: a preliminary explorative single‐blind randomized clinical trial. Korean J Orthod. 2016 Mar; 46(2):104‐10.

Shah R, Khare S and Tiku A A. comparative evaluation of flexibility and bondstrength of stainless steel wire, glass fiber reinforced composite and polyethylene fiber reinforced composite used in splinting of traumatized permanent teeth: An in‐vitro study. International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences 2019; 5(2): 430‐433.

Reynolds IR. A Review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975; 2:171–8.

Waters NE. Some mechanical and physical properties of teeth. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1980; 34:99–135.

Downloads

Published

2022-02-10

How to Cite

1.
Mudhir AM. Shear bond strength of three different fixed retainers: Stainless steel wires versus fiber reinforced composite (An in Vitro study). EDJ [Internet]. 2022 Feb. 10 [cited 2022 Aug. 16];4(2):93-103. Available from: https://pha.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/127

Issue

Section

Original Articles