Cargando…

Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Different Thermoplastic Orthodontic Retainer Materials after Thermoforming and Thermocycling

While the durability of thermoplastic aligners has been the subject of numerous studies, the durability of thermoplastic retainers has received significantly less attention. Patients are often advised to wear their thermoplastic retainers indefinitely, so the durability of the materials used in thei...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Albilali, Alaa T., Baras, Bashayer H., Aldosari, Mohammad A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10096768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37050224
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15071610
_version_ 1785024417231798272
author Albilali, Alaa T.
Baras, Bashayer H.
Aldosari, Mohammad A.
author_facet Albilali, Alaa T.
Baras, Bashayer H.
Aldosari, Mohammad A.
author_sort Albilali, Alaa T.
collection PubMed
description While the durability of thermoplastic aligners has been the subject of numerous studies, the durability of thermoplastic retainers has received significantly less attention. Patients are often advised to wear their thermoplastic retainers indefinitely, so the durability of the materials used in their fabrication is crucial to determining whether they are worth the cost. Limited studies have evaluated the properties of thermoplastic retainer materials and the effects of thermocycling on their mechanical properties. Thus, this study aimed to examine six thermoplastic retainer materials after thermoforming with and without thermocycling. The materials’ flexural modulus, hardness, and surface roughness values were measured after thermoforming (Group 1) and after thermoforming with subsequent thermocycling for 10,000 cycles (Group 2). After thermoforming, there was a significant difference in flexural modulus and hardness values between most of the materials. However, their surface roughness was not significantly different (p < 0.05). After thermocycling, the flexural modulus and hardness increased significantly for most tested materials (p < 0.05) compared to Group 1. Concerning the surface roughness, only two materials showed significantly higher values after thermocycling than Group 1. Thus, all the mechanical properties of the evaluated materials differed after thermoforming, except the surface roughness. Moreover, while thermocycling made the materials stiffer and harder in general, it also made some of them rougher.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10096768
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100967682023-04-13 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Different Thermoplastic Orthodontic Retainer Materials after Thermoforming and Thermocycling Albilali, Alaa T. Baras, Bashayer H. Aldosari, Mohammad A. Polymers (Basel) Article While the durability of thermoplastic aligners has been the subject of numerous studies, the durability of thermoplastic retainers has received significantly less attention. Patients are often advised to wear their thermoplastic retainers indefinitely, so the durability of the materials used in their fabrication is crucial to determining whether they are worth the cost. Limited studies have evaluated the properties of thermoplastic retainer materials and the effects of thermocycling on their mechanical properties. Thus, this study aimed to examine six thermoplastic retainer materials after thermoforming with and without thermocycling. The materials’ flexural modulus, hardness, and surface roughness values were measured after thermoforming (Group 1) and after thermoforming with subsequent thermocycling for 10,000 cycles (Group 2). After thermoforming, there was a significant difference in flexural modulus and hardness values between most of the materials. However, their surface roughness was not significantly different (p < 0.05). After thermocycling, the flexural modulus and hardness increased significantly for most tested materials (p < 0.05) compared to Group 1. Concerning the surface roughness, only two materials showed significantly higher values after thermocycling than Group 1. Thus, all the mechanical properties of the evaluated materials differed after thermoforming, except the surface roughness. Moreover, while thermocycling made the materials stiffer and harder in general, it also made some of them rougher. MDPI 2023-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10096768/ /pubmed/37050224 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15071610 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Albilali, Alaa T.
Baras, Bashayer H.
Aldosari, Mohammad A.
Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Different Thermoplastic Orthodontic Retainer Materials after Thermoforming and Thermocycling
title Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Different Thermoplastic Orthodontic Retainer Materials after Thermoforming and Thermocycling
title_full Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Different Thermoplastic Orthodontic Retainer Materials after Thermoforming and Thermocycling
title_fullStr Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Different Thermoplastic Orthodontic Retainer Materials after Thermoforming and Thermocycling
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Different Thermoplastic Orthodontic Retainer Materials after Thermoforming and Thermocycling
title_short Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Different Thermoplastic Orthodontic Retainer Materials after Thermoforming and Thermocycling
title_sort evaluation of mechanical properties of different thermoplastic orthodontic retainer materials after thermoforming and thermocycling
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10096768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37050224
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15071610
work_keys_str_mv AT albilalialaat evaluationofmechanicalpropertiesofdifferentthermoplasticorthodonticretainermaterialsafterthermoformingandthermocycling
AT barasbashayerh evaluationofmechanicalpropertiesofdifferentthermoplasticorthodonticretainermaterialsafterthermoformingandthermocycling
AT aldosarimohammada evaluationofmechanicalpropertiesofdifferentthermoplasticorthodonticretainermaterialsafterthermoformingandthermocycling