RESEARCH ARTICLE


Comparison of the Stress Strain Capacity between Different Clear Aligners



Domenico Ciavarella1, Claudia Cianci2, Michele Laurenziello1, *, Giuseppe Troiano1, Francesco De Cillis2, Michele Tepedino3, Graziano Montaruli1, Vincenzo Grassia4, Lorenzo Lo Muzio1, Carmine Pappalettere2
1 Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, 50, 71100, Via Rovelli, Italy
2 Department of Mechanics Mathematics and Management, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy
3 Department of Mechanics Biotechnol & Appl Clin Sci, University of L’Aquila, Viale S Salvatore, I-67100 L’Aquila, Italy
4 Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1148
Abstract HTML Views: 825
PDF Downloads: 319
ePub Downloads: 221
Total Views/Downloads: 2513
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 728
Abstract HTML Views: 433
PDF Downloads: 215
ePub Downloads: 132
Total Views/Downloads: 1508



© 2019 Ciavarella et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Via Rovelli, 50, 71100, Italy; Tel: 0881588086; E-mail: michele.laurenziello@unifg.it


Abstract

Background:

The rife use of aesthetic appliance in orthodontic treatment requires the study of the properties of the materials they are made of.

Objective:

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the dimensional stability of clear aligners made of three different materials after the application of in-vivo dynamic stress and in-vitro static stress.

Methods:

Three different aligners made of different materials (PET-G; PET; SmartTrack®), prepared on the dental arch of the same patient, were tested. For each material, three aligner samples were manufactured: one to be used in-vivo, one to be tested in-vitro, and one to be used as a control.

To evaluate the effects of the dynamic stress produced in-vivo, each aligner was worn by a single patient 22 hours per day, followed by a wash-out period of two weeks. To evaluate the effects of static stress, each aligner was exposed to the in-vitro continuous force of 50N. The tested and control aligners were scanned, then linear measurements were taken to evaluate their dimensional stability after different types of stresses.

Results:

PET seems to have the lowest percentage of deformation; PET-G and SmartTrack® showed a reduced deformation going from the posterior to the anterior area. The contact with human saliva induces a greater deformation.

Conclusion:

Different materials show different behavior following application of static stresses and dynamic stresses in the oral cavity. PET showed the highest dimensional stability.

Keywords: Aligners, Stress-strain, PET, PET-G, SmartTrack®, Polycarbonate (PC), Malocclusion.