Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun 10;24(1):676.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04437-w.

Mechanical properties of combined packable and high-filled flowable composite used for the fixed retainer: an in vitro study

Yasaman Alamdarloo  1 , Seyed Ali Mosaddad  2   3 , Farzaneh Golfeshan  4
Affiliations

Mechanical properties of combined packable and high-filled flowable composite used for the fixed retainer: an in vitro study

Yasaman Alamdarloo et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: Clinicians often utilize both flowable and packable composites concurrently in bonding fixed retainers. Thus, this study aimed to assess the synergistic effect of these composites in the bonding process.

Methods: This in vitro study divided specimens into three groups: flowable composite (nano-hybrid, Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent), packable composite (nano-hybrid, Tetric N-ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent), and combined use of flowable and packable composite. Shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and wire pull-out resistance were compared among the groups. Statistical analyses were conducted using ANOVA and Tukey tests to compare study groups. Additionally, Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to analyze the ARI index among the groups.

Results: ANOVA results indicated no statistically significant differences among test groups (P = 0.129) regarding SBS. However, a significant difference existed between flowable and packable composite groups (P = 0.01) regarding ARI scores. Among the study groups, flowable composite exhibited the highest frequencies of ARI scores of 1 and 2, whereas packable composite showed the highest frequency of ARI scores of 0. The combined group had higher frequencies of ARI scores of 0 and 1 compared to the flowable composite. The wire pull-out test revealed that the combined application of flowable and packable composite resulted in significantly lower detachments compared to the packable composite alone (P = 0.008). However, no significant differences were observed in the comparisons between the flowable-packable (P = 0.522) and combined-flowable (P = 0.128) groups.

Conclusion: The combined use of flowable and packable composites for fixed retainers demonstrated adequate shear bond strength and ideal ARI scores, suggesting it as a suitable adhesive system for bonding orthodontic fixed retainers.

Keywords: Adhesive; Biomedical and dental material; Composite; Fixed retainer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
3D designed molds used for administration of composite resin
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mini molds used for the administration of composite resin
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Preparing samples in the combined group
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Measurement of shear bond strength on debonding using universal testing machine
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
3D-designed stamp for wire pull-out test
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
The sample used for the wire pull-out test
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Wire pull-out test
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Johnston CD, Littlewood SJ. Retention in orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2015;218(3):119–22. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.47. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pandis N, Vlahopoulos K, Madianos P, Eliades T. Long-term periodontal status of patients with mandibular lingual fixed retention. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(5):471–6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm042. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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(5):614–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.041. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Renkema AM, Sips ET, Bronkhorst E, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A survey on orthodontic retention procedures in the Netherlands. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(4):432–7. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn131. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Egli F, Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 2-year follow-up of a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151(1):15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.009. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources