Edoardo Mantovani1, Enrico Castroflorio2, Gabriele Rossini3,4, Francesco Garino5, Giovanni Cugliari6, Andrea Deregibus3, Tommaso Castroflorio3. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy. edoardo.mantovani@icloud.com. 2. Department of Mammalian Genetics Unit, Harwell Campus, Oxfordshire, UK. 3. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy. 4. Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico of Turin, Turin, Italy. 5. , Turin, Italy. 6. Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
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.
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.