Fabienne Suter1, Spiros Zinelis1,2, Raphael Patcas1, Marc Schätzle1, George Eliades2, Theodore Eliades1. 1. Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, ZH, Switzerland. 2. Department of Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Attica, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The characterisation of surface roughness and energy of contemporary thermoplastic materials used in manufacturing of orthodontic aligners. DESIGN: In vitro, laboratory study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four commercially available thermoplastic materials were selected (CA-medium/CAM, Essix-copopyester/COP, Duran/DUR and Erkodur/ERK). Five disks from each, as received, material were tested and subjected to: (1) reflected light microscopy; (2) optical profilometry for the estimation of Sa, Sz, Sq, Sdr, Sc, Sv surface roughness parameters (n = 5); and (3) contact angle measurements with a Zisman series of liquids for the estimation of critical surface tension (γC), total work of adhesion (WA), as well as the work of adhesion due to polar (WP) and dispersion (WD) components employing the Zisman method (n = 5/liquid). Thermoformed disks were prepared against a dental stone model and the roughness parameters were calculated again Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA/ Tukey multiple comparison test and t-test (a = 0.05). RESULTS: Microscopic and profilometric analyses revealed a smooth surface texture in the as-received materials, but a very rough texture after thermoforming, with insignificant differences within each state. Significant differences in the as-received state were found in the surface energy parameters; CAM showed the lowest γC and the highest WA, WP, WD, whereas ERK with the highest γC demonstrated lower WA. COP and DUR were ranked in an intermediate group regarding γC, with a statistically significant difference in WA between them, mainly attributed to the lower WP of the former. CONCLUSION: Given the differences in surface energy parameters and the lack of roughness differences within the as received or thermoformed groups, it may be concluded that variations in the plaque retaining capacity are anticipated, determined by γC, WA and the WP, WD components.
OBJECTIVE: The characterisation of surface roughness and energy of contemporary thermoplastic materials used in manufacturing of orthodontic aligners. DESIGN: In vitro, laboratory study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four commercially available thermoplastic materials were selected (CA-medium/CAM, Essix-copopyester/COP, Duran/DUR and Erkodur/ERK). Five disks from each, as received, material were tested and subjected to: (1) reflected light microscopy; (2) optical profilometry for the estimation of Sa, Sz, Sq, Sdr, Sc, Sv surface roughness parameters (n = 5); and (3) contact angle measurements with a Zisman series of liquids for the estimation of critical surface tension (γC), total work of adhesion (WA), as well as the work of adhesion due to polar (WP) and dispersion (WD) components employing the Zisman method (n = 5/liquid). Thermoformed disks were prepared against a dental stone model and the roughness parameters were calculated again Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA/ Tukey multiple comparison test and t-test (a = 0.05). RESULTS: Microscopic and profilometric analyses revealed a smooth surface texture in the as-received materials, but a very rough texture after thermoforming, with insignificant differences within each state. Significant differences in the as-received state were found in the surface energy parameters; CAM showed the lowest γC and the highest WA, WP, WD, whereas ERK with the highest γC demonstrated lower WA. COP and DUR were ranked in an intermediate group regarding γC, with a statistically significant difference in WA between them, mainly attributed to the lower WP of the former. CONCLUSION: Given the differences in surface energy parameters and the lack of roughness differences within the as received or thermoformed groups, it may be concluded that variations in the plaque retaining capacity are anticipated, determined by γC, WA and the WP, WD components.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D roughness; orthodontic aligners; plaque retention; surface energy; wettability
Authors: Carlos A Jurado; Clarisa Amarillas-Gastelum; Kelvin I Afrashtehfar; Liliana Argueta-Figueroa; Nicholas G Fischer; Abdulrahman Alshabib Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 3.748