Relapse and failure rates between CAD/CAM and conventional fixed retainers: a 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Retention has been always considered a major challenge in orthodontics. Recently computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers (FRs) have been introduced as a marked development in retainer technology, offering potential advantages. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the differences in relapse and failure rates in patients treated with FRs using CAD/CAM technology, lab-based technique, and chairside method. TRIAL DESIGN: A double-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted over a 2-year period at a single centre. INTERVENTIONS: These patients were divided into three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded Stainless Steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 14), lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 15), and a chairside group with Stainless Steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (chairside, n = 14). OUTCOMES: Inter-canine width (ICW) and Little's irregularity index were digitally measured from scans at the orthodontic debonding (T1), 6-month retention (T2), 1-year retention (T3), and 2-year retention (T4) visits. All forms of failure were documented and analyzed. RANDOMIZATION: Participants were randomly assigned to the three groups using online randomization software (randomization.com) by a statistician who was not involved in the study. BLINDING: Patients were blinded in terms of the FR group to which they were each randomly assigned. The principal investigator was blinded upon data analysis since patients' records were coded to minimize observer and measurement bias. RESULTS: Initially 81 patients were assessed for eligibility. Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated into the three study groups. After 2-year follow-up, 43 patients came back for the follow-up and were analyzed. The CAD/CAM group showed significantly less reduction in ICW compared to the chairside group at all time intervals (P < .05) and compared to the lab group at 6 months (P = .038). In terms of LII, the CAD/CAM group exhibited significantly less change than the chairside and lab groups at all time intervals (P < .05). The CAD/CAM group had the lowest failure rate (21.4%), followed by chairside group (28.6%) and then lab group (33.3%), however the differences were insignificant. No harms were observed in the current study. CONCLUSION: Within 2 years of fixed retention, CAD/CAM FRs showed significantly less relapse than lab-based and chairside FRs. However, there was no significant difference in failure rates among the groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05915273.

Forces and moments generated by 3D direct printed clear aligners of varying labial and lingual thicknesses during lingual movement of maxillary central incisor: an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the forces and moments exerted by direct printed aligners (DPAs) with varying facial and lingual aligner surface thicknesses, in all three planes of space, during lingual movement of a maxillary central incisor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An in vitro experimental setup was used to quantify forces and moments experienced by a programmed tooth to be moved and by adjacent anchor teeth, during lingual movement of a maxillary central incisor. DPAs were directly 3D-printed with Tera Harz TC-85 (Graphy Inc., Seoul, South Korea) clear photocurable resin in 100-µm layers. Three multi-axis sensors were used to measure the moments and forces generated by 0.50 mm thick DPAs modified with labial and lingual surface thicknesses of 1.00 mm in selective locations. The sensors were connected to three maxillary incisors (the upper left central, the upper right central, and the upper left lateral incisors) during 0.50 mm of programmed lingual bodily movement of the upper left central incisor. Moment-to-force ratios were calculated for all three incisors. Aligners were benchtop tested in a temperature-controlled chamber at intra-oral temperature to simulate intra-oral conditions. RESULTS: The results showed that increased facial thickness of DPAs slightly reduced force levels on the upper left central incisor compared to DPAs of uniform thickness of 0.50 mm. Additionally, increasing the lingual thickness of adjacent teeth reduced force and moment side effects on the adjacent teeth. DPAs can produce moment-to-force ratios indicative of controlled tipping. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted increases in thickness of direct 3D-printed aligners change the magnitude of forces and moments generated, albeit in complex patterns that are difficult to predict. The ability to vary labiolingual thicknesses of DPAs is promising to optimize the prescribed orthodontic movements while minimizing unwanted tooth movements, thereby increasing the predictability of tooth movements.

Forces and moments generated during extrusion of a maxillary central incisor with clear aligners: an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the possibility of extrusion of a maxillary central incisor with the use of buccal and lingual pressure columns in the absence of attachments, and to evaluate the forces and moments experienced by the teeth using both thermoformed and 3D-printed clear aligners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-axis force and moment sensor (Aidin Robotics, Anyang, South Korea) was used to measure the forces and moments during extrusion of an upper left central incisor (UL1) and any forces experienced by the upper right central incisor (UR1) using thermoformed aligners and 3D-printed aligners. For the thermoformed aligners, the materials used were ATMOS® (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI) and Zendura FLX® (Bay Materials LLC, Fremont, CA). 3D-printed aligners were fabricated using TC-85 clear photocurable resin (Graphy Inc., Seoul, South Korea). For each material type, three conditions were tested: Group 1: No attachment or pressure columns (control); Group 2: Attachment only; and Group 3: Pressure columns only. Each group was planned for 0.5 mm of extrusion on the UL1. RESULTS: All force readings collected demonstrated statistically significant differences when compared by materials and when compared by groups, with a P value of < 0.001. In the absence of attachment or pressure columns (Group 1), ATMOS® and TC-85 groups exerted extrusive force on the UL1. However, significantly lower forces and moments were exerted by the TC-85 group in comparison to the ATMOS® and Zendura FLX® groups. In the presence of attachment (Group 2), all three ATMOS®, Zendura FLX® and TC-85 groups exerted extrusive force on the UL1, with the TA group showing different directions of faciolingual force, mesiodistal force and faciolingual inclination on the UR1 when compared to the other two thermoformed groups. Whereas in the presence of pressure columns (Group 3), only the TC-85 3D-printed aligner group exerted extrusive force. Thermoformed aligners generated significantly higher mean forces and moments than 3D-printed aligners. Significant levels of unintended forces and moments were present in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Force levels generated during extrusion with clear aligners are significantly lower with those 3D-printed using TC-85 than with those thermoformed using ATMOS® or Zendura FLX®. Attachments consistently generated extrusive forces, and may be an effective adjunct in achieving extrusion of incisors. Extrusion may be achieved without the use of attachments by utilizing pressure columns in 3D-printed aligners using TC-85. While different strategies can generate extrusive forces, there are significant unintended forces and moments.

Force profile assessment of direct-printed aligners versus thermoformed aligners and the effects of non-engaged surface patterns.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to measure the forces delivered by direct-printed aligners (DPA) in the vertical dimension and compare the force profile with traditional thermoformed aligners (TFA) and to investigate the impact of non-engaged surface patterns to the properties of DPA and TFA. METHODS: A force-measuring appliance was fabricated capable of displacing the aligner in 0.10 mm increments and measuring the resultant force. Polyethylene terephthalate glycol (ATMOS 0.030″ American Orthodontics) and TC-85DAC resin (Graphy Inc) were used to create TFA and DPA, respectively. Aligners were temperature-controlled prior to and during testing to simulate the oral environment. The resultant forces from displacements ranging from 0.10 to 0.30 mm were measured. RESULTS: At intraoral temperatures, DPA demonstrated significantly less force than TFA. TFA demonstrated a substantial statistically significant increase in force with each 0.10 mm increase in vertical displacement. DPA demonstrated a much more consistent force profile across the range of displacements. The effects of surface patterns in both DPA and TFA were generally a decrease in force. Statistical significance of surface patterns was detected for TFA at displacements of 0.30 mm and greater and significant for DPA only at a displacement of 0.10 mm. Surface patterns in both DPA and the TFA did not show any statistical difference when assessing force proprieties. CONCLUSIONS: Forces delivered by aligners in the vertical dimension by DPA are more consistent and of lower magnitude than those of TFA aligners. Surface patterns were not capable of altering the force properties of both DPA and TFA.

Comparative assessment of relapse and failure between CAD/CAM stainless steel and standard stainless steel fixed retainers in orthodontic retention patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare relapse and failure rates of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and standard fixed retainers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial included 46 patients who completed active orthodontic treatment and complied with retention visits. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 16), Lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 16), and control group with stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (traditional, n = 14). Intraoral scans were obtained at placement of fixed retainers (T1), 3-month visit (T2), and 6-month visit (T3) and measured for intercanine width and Little's Irregularity Index. Failures were recorded. RESULTS: The CAD/CAM group experienced less intercanine width decrease than the traditional group at 3 months (mean difference, 0.83 ± 0.16 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.22; P < .001) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.23 ± 0.40 mm; 95% CI, 0.19-2.27; P < .05). The CAD/CAM group experienced less increase in Little's Irregularity Index compared with the lab group within 3 months (mean difference, 0.81 ± 0.27 mm; 95% CI, 0.12-1.49; P < .05). Failures from greatest to least were experienced by the lab group (43.8%), the CAD/CAM group (25%), and the traditional group (14.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Within 6 months of bonding fixed retainers, CAD/CAM fixed retainers showed less relapse than lab-based and traditional chairside retainers and less failures than lab-based retainers.