MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients debonded from fixed appliances at a teaching institution were allocated by block randomization stratified for gender to three groups [VFRs fabricated on conventional, fused deposition modeling (FDM) or stereolithography apparatus (SLA) working models]. Participants wore the VFRs for three months full-time followed by three months part-time. VFRs were collected after each follow-up for Streptococcus and yeast counts. Surface roughness was measured indirectly on the working models using a 3D optical surface texture analyzer. Blinding was not feasible due to appliance appearance. The trial was registered [NCT03844425 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )] and funded by the Universiti Malaya Dental Postgraduate Research Grant (DPRG/14/19).
RESULTS: Thirty participants (eleven conventional, ten FDM, and nine SLA) were analyzed after six dropped out. No harms were reported. Microbial counts between the groups were not significantly different. There were more microbes in the lower VFRs than upper VFRs (total count: p<0.05; effect size, 0.5 during full-time wear and 0.4 during part-time wear). SLA had significantly (p<0.05) smoother surface than FDM (effect size, 0.3) and conventional models (effect size, 0.5). Microbial adherence was not associated with working model surface roughness.
CONCLUSION: Microbial adherence on VFRs was not influenced by degree of surface roughness imprints from working models.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 3D printed models can be used to make VFRs. Lower VFRs tended to accumulate oral microbes, potentially increasing the oral health risk in the lower arch.
STUDY DESIGN: The research was designed as a crossover, randomized control trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects comprised patients receiving fixed appliances at a teaching institution and indicated for VFRs. Post-treatment stone models were scanned with a structured-light scanner. A fused deposition modelling machine was used to construct acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)-based replicas from the 3D scanned images. VFRs were fabricated on the original stone and printed models. Analysis comprised independent t-tests and repeated measures analysis of variance.
RANDOMIZATION: Subjects were allocated to two groups using Latin squares methods and simple randomization. A week after debond, subjects received either VFR-CV first (group A) or VFR-3D first (group B) for 3 months, then the interventions were crossed over for another 3 months.
BLINDING: In this single-blinded study, subjects were assigned a blinding code for data entry; data were analysed by a third party.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) based on Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). Secondary outcome was post-treatment stability measured using Little's Irregularity Index (LII).
RESULTS: A total of 30 subjects (15 in each group) were recruited but 3 dropped out. Analysis included 13 subjects from group A and 14 subjects from group B. Group A showed an increase in LII (P < 0.05) after wearing VFR-CV and VFR-3D, whereas group B had no significant increase in LII after wearing both VFRs. Both groups reported significant improvement in OHRQoL after the first intervention but no significant differences after the second intervention. LII changes and OHIP-14 scores at T2 and T3 between groups, and overall between the retainers were not significantly different. No harm was reported during the study.
CONCLUSION: VFRs made on ABS-based 3D printed models showed no differences in terms of patients' OHRQoL and stability compared with conventionally made retainers.
REGISTRATION: NCT02866617 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tristar Trubalance aligner sheets were used to fabricate the CAs. Thirty-four resin models were 3D printed and 17 each, were bonded with ellipsoidal or rectangular attachments on maxillary right central incisors. Fuji Prescale pressure film was used to measure the force generated by the attachment of CA. The images of colour density produced on the films were processed using a calibrated pressure mapping system utilising image processing techniques and topographical force mapping to quantify the force. The force measurement process was repeated after the flash was removed from the attachment using tungsten-carbide bur on a slow-speed handpiece.
RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.92-0.98). The average mean force exerted by ellipsoidal attachments with flash was 8.05 ± 0.16 N, while 8.11 ± 0.18 N was without flash. As for rectangular attachments, the average mean force with flash was 8.48 ± 0.27 N, while 8.53 ± 0.13 N was without flash. Paired t-test revealed no statistically significant difference in the mean force exerted by CA in the presence or absence of flash for both ellipsoidal (p = 0.07) and rectangular attachments (p = 0.41). Rectangular attachments generated statistically significantly (p 0.05).
METHODS: Twenty-two patients (11 male, 11 female; mean age, 19.8 ± 3.1 years) with Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion were recruited for this split-mouth clinical trial; they required extraction of maxillary first premolars bilaterally. After leveling and alignment with self-ligating brackets (SmartClip SL3; 3M Unitek, St Paul, Minn), a 150-g force was applied to retract the canines bilaterally using 6-mm nickel-titanium closed-coil springs on 0.019 x 0.025-in stainless steel archwires. A gallium-aluminum-arsenic diode laser (iLas; Biolase, Irvine, Calif) with a wavelength of 940 nm in a continuous mode (energy density, 7.5 J/cm2/point; diameter of optical fiber tip, 0.04 cm2) was applied at 5 points buccally and palatally around the canine roots on the experimental side; the other side was designated as the placebo. Laser irradiation was applied at baseline and then repeated after 3 weeks for 2 more consecutive follow-up visits. Questionnaires based on the numeric rating scale were given to the patients to record their pain intensity for 1 week. Impressions were made at each visit before the application of irradiation at baseline and the 3 visits. Models were scanned with a CAD/CAM scanner (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland).
RESULTS: Canine retraction was significantly greater (1.60 ± 0.38 mm) on the experimental side compared with the placebo side (0.79 ± 0.35 mm) (P <0.05). Pain was significantly less on the experimental side only on the first day after application of LLLI and at the second visit (1.4 ± 0.82 and 1.4 ± 0.64) compared with the placebo sides (2.2 ± 0.41 and 2.4 ± 1.53).
CONCLUSIONS: Low-level laser irradiation applied at 3-week intervals can accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce the pain associated with it.
METHODS: Patients in the permanent dentition requiring maxillary and mandibular fixed orthodontic treatment with a preadjusted edgewise appliance were eligible for inclusion. Patients attending 4 hospital departments (United Kingdom and Italy) were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 treatment interventions: (1) BioCosmetic (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany), 0.017 in; (2) Titanol (Forestadent), 0.016 in; (3) TP Aesthetic (TP Orthodontics, La Porte, Ind), 0.014 in; and (4) Tooth Tone (Ortho Organizers, Calsbad, Calif) 0.016 in. Block randomization with block sizes of 4 and 8 was used to ensure an allocation ratio of 1:1:1:1. The primary outcome was alignment efficiency determined by the reduction in Little's irregularity index (mm). Secondary outcomes were color change using the Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage L*a*b* system and percentage of coating loss. Blinding was only applicable to outcome assessment of alignment efficiency. Regression models with Sidak's multiple comparison of means were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients (300 dental arches) were allocated to the treatment interventions, including 61 male and 89 female subjects with a mean age of 16.60 years. The average duration of follow-up was 63.65 days. Baseline characteristics for the archwire groups were similar. One patient was lost to follow-up. Five percent (n = 15) of the archwires fractured: BioCosmetic, 5.3% (n = 4); Titanol, 6.8% (n = 5); TP Aesthetic, 5.3% (n = 4); and Tooth Tone, 2.7% (n = 2). We analyzed 283 dental arches for alignment efficiency. There was no statistically significant difference for mean reduction in irregularity between the archwire groups (P = 0.627): BioCosmetic (n = 71), 3.86 mm (95% CI, 3.31-4.41); Titanol (n = 69), 4.51 mm (95% CI, 4.00-5.02); TP Aesthetic (n = 71), 4.13 mm (95% CI, 3.49-4.78); and Tooth Tone (n = 72), 4.21 mm (95% CI, 3.89-4.46). There was a statistically significant difference between archwire groups for color change (P = 0.001) and percentage of coating loss (P = 0.001), with BioCosmetic performing best in both parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the archwires for alignment efficiency. BioCosmetic performed statistically significantly better than did the other groups for both color change and coating loss.
REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the East Midlands NHS Research Ethics Committee (12/EM/0190).
PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.