Hodecker Lutz D, Scheurer Mats, Scharf Sven, Roser Christoph J, Fouda Ahmed M, Bourauel Christoph, Lux Christopher J, Bauer Carolien A J
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
J Funct Biomater. 2023 May 24;14(6):289. doi: 10.3390/jfb14060289.
(1) Background: Novel high-performance polymers for medical 3D printing enable in-office manufacturing of fully customized brackets. Previous studies have investigated clinically relevant parameters such as manufacturing precision, torque transmission, and fracture stability. The aim of this study is to evaluate different design options of the bracket base concerning the adhesive bond between the bracket and tooth, measured as the shear bond strength (SBS) and maximum force (F) according to DIN 13990. (2) Methods: Three different designs for printed bracket bases were compared with a conventional metal bracket (C). The following configurations were chosen for the base design: Matching of the base to the anatomy of the tooth surface, size of the cross-sectional area corresponding to the control group (C), and a micro- (A) and macro- (B) retentive design of the base surface. In addition, a group with a micro-retentive base (D) matched to the tooth surface and an increased size was studied. The groups were analyzed for SBS, F, and adhesive remnant index (ARI). The Kruskal-Wallis test with a post hoc test (Dunn-Bonferroni) and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis (significance level: < 0.05). (3) Results: The values for SBS and F were highest in C (SBS: 12.0 ± 3.8 MPa; F: 115.7 ± 36.6 N). For the printed brackets, there were significant differences between A and B (A: SBS 8.8 ± 2.3 MPa, F 84.7 ± 21.8 N; B: SBS 12.0 ± 2.1 MPa, F 106.5 ± 20.7 N). F was significantly different for A and D (D: F 118.5 ± 22.8 N). The ARI score was highest for A and lowest for C. (4) Conclusions: This study shows that conventional brackets form a more stable bond with the tooth than the 3D-printed brackets. However, for successful clinical use, the shear bond strength of the printed brackets can be increased with a macro-retentive design and/or enlargement of the base.
(1) 背景:用于医学3D打印的新型高性能聚合物能够在诊所内制造完全定制的托槽。先前的研究已经调查了诸如制造精度、扭矩传递和断裂稳定性等临床相关参数。本研究的目的是根据DIN 13990,评估托槽底座的不同设计方案对托槽与牙齿之间粘结力的影响,粘结力通过剪切粘结强度(SBS)和最大力(F)来衡量。(2) 方法:将三种不同设计的打印托槽底座与传统金属托槽(C)进行比较。底座设计选择了以下几种配置:底座与牙齿表面解剖结构的匹配度、与对照组(C)相对应的横截面积大小,以及底座表面的微观(A)和宏观(B)固位设计。此外,还研究了一组与牙齿表面匹配且尺寸增大的微观固位底座(D)。对各小组进行SBS、F和粘结剂残留指数(ARI)分析。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验及事后检验(Dunn-Bonferroni)和Mann-Whitney U检验进行统计分析(显著性水平:<0.05)。(3) 结果:C组的SBS和F值最高(SBS:12.0±3.8MPa;F:115.7±36.6N)。对于打印托槽,A组和B组之间存在显著差异(A组:SBS 8.8±2.3MPa,F 84.7±21.8N;B组:SBS 12.0±2.1MPa,F 106.5±20.7N)。A组和D组的F值存在显著差异(D组:F 118.5±22.8N)。A组的ARI评分最高,C组最低。(4) 结论:本研究表明,传统托槽与牙齿形成的粘结比3D打印托槽更稳定。然而,为了成功应用于临床,采用宏观固位设计和/或扩大底座可以提高打印托槽的剪切粘结强度。