Evaluation of the effect of different attachment configurations on molar teeth in maxillary expansion with clear aligners - a finite element analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of different attachment configurations with and without buccal root torque on expansion movements achieved with aligners through finite element analysis (FEA). METHODS: FEA modelling was done with 0.25 mm buccal expansion force application to the maxillary molars with different attachment configurations: Eight models were tested (1) no attachment (NA), (2) horizontal attachment (HA), (3) gingivally beveled horizontal attachment (GHA), and (4) occlusally beveled horizontal attachment (OHA), as well as models with 6obuccal root torque, (5) no attachment (TNA), (6) horizontal attachment (THA), (7) gingivally beveled horizontal attachment (TGHA), and (8) occlusally beveled horizontal attachment (TOHA). RESULTS: The first and second molars exhibited buccal tipping in all models. The highest amount of buccal tipping for the molars was observed in the NA (6CMB, 0.232 mm; 6CMP, 0.246 mm; 7CMB, 0.281 mm; 7CMP, 0.312 mm) and GHA (6CMB, 0.230; 6CMP, 0.245; 7CMB, 0.279 mm; 7CMP, 0.311 mm) models, respectively, while the least tipping was observed in the TOHA model (6CMB, 0.155 mm; 6CMP, 0.168 mm; 7CMB, 0.216 mm; 7CMP, 0.240 mm). In all groups, the buccal tipping of the second molars was higher than that of the first molars. CONCLUSION: This FEA study showed that expansion with aligners tip maxillary molars buccally and the use of occlusally beveled attachments and addition of buccal root torque reduces uncontrolled buccal tipping.

Evaluation of the effects of semipontic design on tooth movements during mesialization of mandibular second molar performed with clear aligner treatment by finite element analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Loss of the mandibular first molar is common in orthodontic patients. One treatment option is the mesialization of the second and third molars. This study aimed to investigate the displacement and type of movement in the second molar during mandibular second molar mesialization with clear aligner treatment using finite element analysis in configurations with or without pontic, semipontic, and anatomic pontic for the edentulous space. METHODS: Mesialization of the mandibular second molar with clear aligner treatment was simulated using the AlGOR Fempro program (ALGOR, Inc, Pa) with 3 different configurations. RESULTS: In the transverse direction, the highest rotation occurred in the anatomic pontic model, whereas the lowest rotation was in the semipontic model. In the sagittal axis, although tooth movement was realized by tipping in all scenarios, the semipontic model showed the closest movement to translation because of a higher rate of crown-root movement. In the vertical axis, although extrusion occurred in all configurations, the semipontic model showed the least extrusion forces, whereas the anatomic pontic model showed the most. CONCLUSIONS: Mesiobuccal rotation, mesial tipping, and extrusion were observed in all models. However, the semipontic design had the closest movement to translational. Further randomized, controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate the effects of different pontic designs on tooth movements.

Comparison of the bond strength of five different composites used in the production of clear aligner attachments.

AIM: The aims of this study were to measure and compare shear bond strength (SBS) and manipulation time (MT) among five different composite resins (CR; two flowable and three highly viscous) which are used in the production of clear aligner attachments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This in vitro experiment study comprised of 150 extracted premolars which were divided into 5 equal groups. Predictor variables were CRs; Tetric Evo Ceram (Ivoclar VivadentAG, Liechtenstein) (Group 1), Tetric NCeram; (Ivoclar VivadentAG, Liechtenstein) (Group 2), Tetric N-Flow (GC Dental Products, Tokyo, Japan) (Group 3), G-aenial Universal Injectable (GC Dental Products, Tokyo, Japan) (Group 4), GC Aligner Connect (GC Dental Products, Tokyo, Japan) (Group 5), respectively. Outcome variables were; SBS and MT for each CR attachment in each group of teeth. Oneway ANOVA was used to compare the groups. Levene's test was used to determine variance homogeneity. In terms of variance homogeneity, Bonferroni tests were used as a post-hoc test for multiple group comparisons. RESULTS: SBS was statistically different between study groups (p < 0.001). Average SBS values ​​are found to be 16.6 ± 3.6 MPa for Tetric Evo Ceram; 20.7 ± 5.4 MPa for Tetric NCeram; 21.0 ± 4.0 MPa for Tetric N-Flow; 18.9 ± 5.0 MPa for G-aenial Universal Injectable; and 17.4 ± 3.5 MPa for GC Aligner Connect. The values ​​in the Tetric Evo Ceram group were significantly lower than the Tetric N-Ceram group (p = 0.004) and the Tetric N-Flow group (p = 0.001). Mean value of shear bond strength in the GC Aligner connect group were significantly lower than in the Tetric N-Ceram group (p = 0.047) and in the Tetric N-Flow group (p = 0.017). Flowable composite had a significantly shorter manipulation time than the high viscous one; mean 1,08 ± 0,22 min to mean 4,57 ± 0,51 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although SBSs of CRs tested in the study was found to be statistically different, they all quite exceeded the accepted clinically sufficient value of 6-8 MPa. Besides, flowable composite required substantially less time to manipulate than the high viscosity composite.