Literature DB >> 30080124

Long-term effects of different cleaning methods on copolyester retainer properties.

Emily Wible, Manika Agarwal, Sibel Altun, Tyler Ramir, Grace Viana, Carla Evans, Henry Lukic, Spiro Megremis, Phimon Atsawasuwan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate light transmittance, surface roughness, and flexural modulus of copolyester retainer material after long-term exposure to different cleaning methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized copolyester retainer specimens (ACE) were subjected to seven chemical cleaning solutions for 6 months: Invisalign cleaning crystals, Retainer Brite, Polident, Listerine mouthwash, 2.5% acetic acid, 0.6% NaClO, and 3% H2O2. Seventy specimens (n = 10 per method, 50.8 mm × 12.7 mm × 1.0 mm) were exposed to the different solutions twice a week for 2 minutes or according to manufacturer's instructions and stored in artificial saliva at 37°C. Another group of specimens (n = 10) was brushed with a standardized toothbrushing machine for 2 minutes twice a week. At baseline and 6 months, light transmittance, surface roughness and flexural modulus of the specimens were quantified using spectrophotometry, profilometry, and three-point bend testing, respectively. Qualitative assessment was performed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Statistical analyses were accomplished at a significance level of .05.
RESULTS: The results indicated that light transmittance through the specimens decreased significantly from baseline for all cleaning methods at 6 months. Flexural modulus of the specimens decreased significantly for all cleaning methods except Invisalign crystals and Retainer Brite ( P > .05). The Listerine group demonstrated the worst light transmittance change while H2O2 demonstrated the greatest change in flexural modulus of the specimens compared with other cleaning methods; however, no qualitative difference was observed using SEM analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that different cleaning methods affect long-term physical properties of the ACE retainer material. At the present time, none of these cleaning methods is ideal for copolyester retainer material.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Essix ACE; Flexibility; Physical property; Retainer cleaning; Thermoplastic retainer; Translucency

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30080124      PMCID: PMC8120877          DOI: 10.2319/010218-2.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  16 in total

1.  Orthodontic relapse versus natural development.

Authors:  B Thilander
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  Comparison of an absolute and surrogate measure of relative translucency in dental ceramics.

Authors:  Lisa S Spink; Patchanee Rungruanganut; Spiro Megremis; J Robert Kelly
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 5.304

3.  An assessment of the effectiveness of mechanical and chemical cleaning of Essix orthodontic retainer.

Authors:  Chiew Sinn Chang; Sarah Al-Awadi; Derren Ready; Joseph Noar
Journal:  J Orthod       Date:  2014-02-17

Review 4.  Toward a perspective on orthodontic retention?

Authors:  C Melrose; D T Millett
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Long-term effects of seven cleaning methods on light transmittance, surface roughness, and flexural modulus of polyurethane retainer material.

Authors:  Manika Agarwal; Emily Wible; Tyler Ramir; Sibel Altun; Grace Viana; Carla Evans; Henry Lukic; Spiro Megremis; Phimon Atsawasuwan
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Effect of fluoride concentration and pH on corrosion behavior of titanium for dental use.

Authors:  M Nakagawa; S Matsuya; T Shiraishi; M Ohta
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.116

7.  Wear comparison of thermoplastic materials used for orthodontic retainers.

Authors:  Gary D Gardner; William J Dunn; Louis Taloumis
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  Effects of aging procedures on the molecular, biochemical, morphological, and mechanical properties of vacuum-formed retainers.

Authors:  Hyo-Won Ahn; Hye-Ryun Ha; Ho-Nam Lim; Samjin Choi
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2015-08-03

9.  Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers.

Authors:  Lisa Hichens; Heidi Rowland; Alison Williams; Sandra Hollinghurst; Paul Ewings; Steven Clark; Anthony Ireland; Jonathan Sandy
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations.

Authors:  C S Jones; R W Billington; G J Pearson
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2004-01-10       Impact factor: 1.626

View more
  4 in total

1.  Long-term effects of various cleaning methods on polypropylene/ethylene copolymer retainer material.

Authors:  Emily Wible; Manika Agarwal; Sibel Altun; Tyler Ramir; Grace Viana; Carla Evans; Henry Lukic; Spiro Megremis; Phimon Atsawasuwan
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Effects of various cleaning agents on polypropylene and copolyester thermoplastic orthodontic retainer materials.

Authors:  Ayat M Hussein; Harraa S Mohammed-Salih; Iman I Al-Sheakli
Journal:  J Taibah Univ Med Sci       Date:  2022-05-06

3.  The Effects of Staining and Cleaning on the Color and Light Transmittance Changes of a Copolyester Retainer Material with Different Surface Textures.

Authors:  Laurie Susarchick; Insia Virji; Grace Viana; Mervat Mahmoud; Veerasathpurush Allareddy; Max Gruber; Henry Lukic; Spiro Megremis; Phimon Atsawasuwan
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 3.748

4.  Influence of a bleaching agent on surface and mechanical properties of orthodontic thermoplastic retainer materials : An in vitro study.

Authors:  Neda Babanouri; Nazanin Ahmadi; Hamid Reza Pakshir; Shabnam Ajami; Raha Habibagahi
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 2.341

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.