Skip to main content
Download PDF

Mechanical properties of combined packable and high-filled flowable composite used for the fixed retainer: an in vitro study

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 676 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Clinicians often utilize both flowable and packable composites concurrently in bonding fixed retainers. Thus, this study aimed to assess the synergistic effect of these composites in the bonding process.

Methods

This in vitro study divided specimens into three groups: flowable composite (nano-hybrid, Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent), packable composite (nano-hybrid, Tetric N-ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent), and combined use of flowable and packable composite. Shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and wire pull-out resistance were compared among the groups. Statistical analyses were conducted using ANOVA and Tukey tests to compare study groups. Additionally, Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to analyze the ARI index among the groups.

Results

ANOVA results indicated no statistically significant differences among test groups (P = 0.129) regarding SBS. However, a significant difference existed between flowable and packable composite groups (P = 0.01) regarding ARI scores. Among the study groups, flowable composite exhibited the highest frequencies of ARI scores of 1 and 2, whereas packable composite showed the highest frequency of ARI scores of 0. The combined group had higher frequencies of ARI scores of 0 and 1 compared to the flowable composite. The wire pull-out test revealed that the combined application of flowable and packable composite resulted in significantly lower detachments compared to the packable composite alone (P = 0.008). However, no significant differences were observed in the comparisons between the flowable-packable (P = 0.522) and combined-flowable (P = 0.128) groups.

Conclusion

The combined use of flowable and packable composites for fixed retainers demonstrated adequate shear bond strength and ideal ARI scores, suggesting it as a suitable adhesive system for bonding orthodontic fixed retainers.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Orthodontic retention serves as the concluding stage of orthodontic treatment, focusing on maintaining teeth in their corrected positions following the completion of orthodontic tooth movement. However, teeth commonly tend to revert to their original positions due to the stretching of periodontal fibers, particularly those located at the tooth necks, including interdental and dentogingival fibers [1].

During the 1970s, fixed retainers were introduced as a preventive measure against the recurrence of lower incisor crowding following orthodontic treatments [2]. Lingually attached retainers are becoming increasingly popular among orthodontists. This preference is driven by their aesthetic appeal and the comfort they provide to patients, particularly during extended periods of wear [3, 4].

Fixed retainers offer several advantages, as supported by studies [5,6,7], including superior esthetic appeal, independence from patient cooperation, efficacy, and suitability for long-term retention. However, despite these benefits, certain drawbacks have been noted in the literature [8,9,10], such as their reliance on precise adhesive techniques, susceptibility to breakage, and potential to compromise oral cleanliness, leading to periodontal complications.

Multiple studies have explored the survival rates of bonded lingual retainers, with previously reported overall failure rates varying between 10.3% and 50% [8, 11, 12]. These failure rates differ across studies based on factors such as the materials used for retainer construction, the type of retainer, and the duration of follow-up. The failure of bonded fixed retainers can be attributed to several factors, including the detachment of the tooth-bonding interface, separation of the wire-bonding interface, breakage of the retainer wire, and unwanted torque movement of the teeth resulting from the retainer wire [11, 13,14,15].

Various adhesives have been specified for use in bonded retainers [16,17,18]. Conventional packable composites have conventionally been favored for fixed retainers due to their high filler content and resistance to abrasion. However, their application in the lingual region, where isolation is crucial, can be time-consuming [19]. In contemporary practice, the use of flowable composites with higher resin content, tailored for restorative dentistry, has been advocated for bonding fixed retainers. These flowable composites come in a range of formulations and viscosities to suit various applications. Notably, flowable composites incorporating nano-sized filler particles hold potential due to their higher filler content per unit volume and increased abrasion resistance compared to conventional micro-filled flowable composites, improving the material’s characteristics over conventional composites [20, 21]. Flowable composites eliminate the need for mixing during application. Their application syringes equipped with needle tips facilitate direct and precise injection of the composite, aided by its non-tacky nature. Additionally, no trimming or polishing is necessary, resulting in reduced processing time [22]. A considerable body of literature has explored various types of retainer wires, adhesive materials, and bonding techniques for fixed retainers [8, 13, 23,24,25]. In the bonding process of fixed retainers, securing the retainer wire adjacent to the lingual surfaces of the teeth prior to bonding poses a challenge for some practitioners. Methods such as finger pressure or pliers may raise concerns regarding stability. Various techniques have been introduced to address this issue, but many require additional laboratory or clinical steps, potentially prolonging the process. One method involves applying a small amount of flowable composite to hold the wire in place after the bonding agents have been applied to the lingual surfaces of the teeth. Subsequently, additional flowable or packable composites can be applied to both the teeth and fixed retainer wires to complete the bonding procedure [26].

Some major concerns regarding the bonding material include its ability to maintain adhesion over time without self-detaching. Thus, it necessitates a high bond strength. However, when intentionally debonded, it should leave minimal residues on the tooth’s surface to avoid more invasive and time-consuming cleanup procedures [27]. To date, a definitive adhesive for bonding fixed retainers has not been established. Previous studies [16, 25, 28] have primarily focused on evaluating and comparing the mechanical properties of fixed retainers bonded with either flowable or packable composites. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior study has investigated the biomechanical properties of fixed retainer wires using both packable and flowable composites simultaneously.

In this in vitro study, the adhesive remnant index (ARI), shear bond strength (SBS), and wire pull-out were assessed for fixed retainers bonded with both flowable and packable composites and compared to those attached using each composite alone. The null hypothesis posited that the utilization of both flowable and packable composites together does not affect the studied outcomes.

Methods

In this study, the samples were divided into three groups: flowable composite (Nano-Hybrid, Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), packable composite (Nano-Hybrid, Tetric N-Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), and the combined use of flowable and packable composite. These groups were compared for SBS, ARI, and wire pull-out resistance. The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Shiraz University of Medical Science (IR.SUMS.DENTAL.REC.1401.063) and is reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines.

Specimens characteristics

Seventy-two extracted sound bovine incisor teeth were used for SBS and ARI evaluations. Based on a study by Reicheneder et al. [29], twelve pairs were allocated to each of the three study groups, resulting in a total of 72 samples. The minimum sample size was calculated to be nine pairs in each group using G*Power software with B = 0.2, α = 0.05, and a study power of 90%. However, to ensure higher accuracy, the minimum sample size was increased to 12 pairs in each group. Previous studies have validated the use of bovine teeth as a substrate for SBS testing [30]. These teeth were sourced from animals euthanized in a slaughterhouse for reasons unrelated to this study. After extraction, the teeth were rinsed with water and cleaned of any debris using a scaler. They were then stored in distilled water at 24 °C to maintain hydration [31]. Any teeth showing hypoplastic or anomalous enamel areas were excluded from the sample groups. The teeth were paired and embedded in chemically cured acrylic resin molds to simulate dental arch positioning and interdental contacts. The surfaces were oriented to allow for parallel cutting of the retainer in relation to the crown.

To conduct the wire pull-out test, a total of 192 cylindrical acrylic blocks were fabricated, each measuring 25 mm in width and 10 mm in depth. Custom molds compatible with the testing machine were utilized for this purpose. The minimum sample size for each of the three groups was determined to be 64, resulting in a total of 192 blocks, based on parameters including effect size (0.5), study power (90%), significance level (α = 0.05), and a non-centrality parameter (B = 0.2). These calculations were performed using G*power software. Consequently, each of the three test groups was allocated 64 blocks.

Shear bond strength testing

The samples were divided into three test groups, each comprising 24 teeth. A 37% phosphoric acid gel (3 M, USA, fluoride-free) was applied to etch the teeth’ lingual surface for 30 s, a standard etching time in orthodontic bonding [32]. After rinsing with water and air drying for 10 s, bonding resin (Tetric-N-bond, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) was applied and light-cured for 10 s in each test group. Subsequently, 15 mm lengths of passive retainer wire (American Orthodontics, three-strand, 17.5 twists) were bonded to the lingual surface of the teeth parallel to the acrylic base. Flowable composite was used for Group 1, packable composite for Group 2, and a combination of both composites for Group 3. The amount of composite used was standardized using a minidome-shaped mold (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

3D designed molds used for administration of composite resin

Full size image

The composite resins were placed into a custom-made mini mold featuring an internal diameter of 4 mm and a height of 3 mm (Fig. 2). Within the mold, a groove facilitated the positioning of the composite to align with the wire at the center of the composite connection. The excess composite material was meticulously removed using a dental explorer, followed by curing with an LED curing light for 30 s—notably, the transparency of the mold allowed for effective light curing. In the case of utilizing both composites in Group 3, a flowable composite was initially packed and light-cured within a mini mold featuring an internal diameter of 2 mm and a height of 2.5 mm. Subsequently, the flowable composite was overlaid with a packable composite using a mini mold measuring 4 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height (Fig. 3). Post-application, the samples were de-molded and subjected to a second curing cycle lasting 20 s.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Mini molds used for the administration of composite resin

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Preparing samples in the combined group

Full size image

To maintain consistency in the bonding process, all retainers were standardized to a length of 12 mm. A flexible custom mold was employed to ensure adherence to standardized testing protocols, resulting in adhesive surfaces with a diameter of 4 mm and positioned 4 mm apart from each other. Each sample underwent a storage period of seven days in distilled water prior to testing.

The detachment procedure was conducted utilizing a Zwick Roell Universal Testing Machine-Z020, operating at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min (Fig. 4). To simulate preliminary bite stress, the applied strain was directed along the occlusal-apical axis of the incisors. Consistent with established methodologies [28,29,30, 33, 34], the edge of the shear bar was positioned at the midpoint of the interdental segment, owing to its heightened sensitivity. Stress was incrementally applied to the wire until separation ensued, with the resulting SBS recorded in Newtons (N).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Measurement of shear bond strength on debonding using universal testing machine

Full size image

Adhesive remnant index (ARI)

Following debonding, all teeth and retainers were examined using an optical microscope (Bestscope 300, BestScope Technology Co., Ltd., China) to assess the residual adhesive on the enamel surfaces. The quantification of adhesive remnants adhering to the teeth surfaces was carried out according to established guidelines for assessing the ARI [35]. The criteria were as follows:

  • Score 0 = No adhesive left on the tooth.

  • Score 1 = Less than half of the adhesive left on the tooth.

  • Score 2 = More than half of the adhesive left on the tooth.

  • Score 3 = All adhesive left on the tooth, with a distinct impression of the retainer.

Wire pull-out

A small rectangle was crafted on the top of each block using a wire measuring 2.5 mm wide, 5 mm long, and 4 mm deep, representing the quantity of wire typically inserted in a bonded dental retainer. Additionally, a small groove measuring 1 mm in width was carved into the top surface of the block, extending across its entire diameter, with the intention of securing the wire in place. This groove was made approximately 2 mm deep in each test group to demonstrate the depth of penetration of both the wire and the composite material into the tooth surface.

The fabrication of the rectangle and groove was accomplished using a stamp designed in 3D and printed with resin (Fig. 5). Subsequently, the upper surface of the block, formed by the stamp, was polished and prepared for bonding. Initially, any debris within the slot and center hole was manually removed. Then, the slot and hole were dried using compressed air. An 8.5-cm long three-strand rope was passively positioned at the bottom of the groove, followed by the passive placement of an 8.5-cm length three-strand wire at the base of the groove. A 3.5-cm length was marked on both sides of the wire, and a node was tied by two Matthew knots (Fig. 6). Subsequently, acrylic was poured onto the node to secure it in place during the test.

Fig. 5
figure 5

3D-designed stamp for wire pull-out test

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

The sample used for the wire pull-out test

Full size image

Following this, the wire was inserted into the specific composite material designated for testing. In Group 1, the wire was embedded in the packable composite, while in Group 2, it was embedded in the flowable composite. Group 3 involved a combination of both composite types. The void in the middle of the slot was filled with the test material. Special attention was paid to ensuring intimate contact between the plastic and the wall of the center hole of the slot without any obstruction from air bubbles. Any excess material was removed by the sculptor. Finally, the composite was treated with light for 30 s. To prepare Group 3, a flexible silicone mold with dimensions of 2.5 mm in width, 1 mm in length, and 2 mm in depth was used as a barrier against the spread of flowable composite throughout the cavity.

The molds were positioned on both sides of the wire, after which the wire was embedded in flowable composite up to half of the mold’s depth, equivalent to 1 mm. Following the curing of the flowable composite, the molds were removed, and the remaining space, encompassing the former mold placement and extending 1 mm above the flowable composite, was filled with packable composite (Fig. 7). Subsequently, the ends of the wires were pulled and connected to enable fixation using the tension sensor fixing lever of the universal tester (Zwick Z020). This setup allowed for the application of force perpendicular to the dip cord’s length to initiate the movement of the rope. Testing for damage was conducted by moving the crosshead at a speed of 10 mm per minute [36]. The force required to extract the wire from the device was measured in Newtons (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Wire pull-out test

Full size image

Statistical analysis

The average and variation values for each study group were calculated using the collected data from the experimental groups. ANOVA was employed to assess significant differences among the groups, followed by the application of the Tukey HSD range test to confirm any observed disparities with a 95% confidence level. Furthermore, the Chi-square test was used to investigate variations in ARI scores across different groups, and pairwise comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software (IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.)

Results

Table 1 presents the mean, standard deviation, and results of the ANOVA test for shear bond strength across all groups. The ANOVA analysis indicated no statistically significant differences between the test groups (P = 0.129).

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of sbs testing, and (anova results) statistical results
Full size table

Table 2 displays the frequency distribution of ARI scores across different groups. The results of the nonparametric Chi-Square test demonstrated statistically significant differences among the test groups (P = 0.01). Subsequently, a pair-wise comparison (Kruskal-Wallis test) test was conducted. Among the study groups, flowable composite demonstrated the highest frequencies of ARI scores of 1 and 2, while packable composite exhibited the highest frequency of ARI scores of 0. The combined group showed higher frequencies of ARI scores of 0 and 1 compared to the flowable composite. Based on the results of pair-wise comparison, only the difference between flowable and packable composites was found to be significant (P = 0.01) (Table 3).

Table 2 Frequency distribution of the adhesive remnant index (ARI) of the three groups evaluated
Full size table
Table 3 Pairwise comparison of groups for ARI scores
Full size table

Table 4 presents the wire pull-out values for different groups. The ANOVA results indicated significant differences between the test groups. Subsequently, Tukey’s HSD test was employed for pairwise comparisons. The results demonstrated that the combined application of flowable and packable composite yielded significantly lower debonding compared to the packable composite alone (P = 0.008). However, no significant differences were observed in the comparisons between the flowable-packable (P = 0.522) and combined-flowable (P = 0.128) groups,, as illustrated in Table 5.

Table 4 Means and standard deviations of wire pull-out test and statistical results
Full size table
Table 5 Post hoc tests for pairwise wire pull-out comparison
Full size table

Discussion

After orthodontic therapy, teeth often tend to relapse to their original positions due to insufficient time for periodontal tissues to reshape. It is crucial to maintain the achieved tooth positioning throughout the reorganization process. To achieve this, the utilization of removable or fixed retention systems is necessary [1]. The necessity for reliable maintenance of tooth alignment following orthodontic intervention is undisputed from a clinical perspective. The bonded wire retainer is a multifaceted apparatus subject to numerous forces emanating from varying directions [34]. Orthodontists now favor new bonding materials for retainers, which are bonded either between canine teeth or between premolar teeth to maintain the alignment of lower anterior teeth [8]. This method, which has shown effectiveness and aesthetic appeal, is gaining recommendation among specialists who advocate for using flowable composites to attach lingual retainers [37]. Many clinicians now utilize a combination of both flowable and packable composites during the bonding of fixed retainers. Flowable composites offer ease of application with their needle tips, allowing clinicians to apply them to the tooth effortlessly. On the other hand, packable composites boast high filler content, resulting in enhanced abrasion resistance and reduced shrinkage. Consequently, the present study was designed to include a third group employing both flowable and packable composite materials in the bonding procedure to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two composites.

In the SBS analysis of the study, the mean values ranged from 39.71 to 82.68 N, with Group 1 (Tetric-N-flow, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) exhibiting the highest shear bond strength. However, the difference in mean strength among the groups was found to be statistically insignificant. This finding is consistent with a study by Radlanski and Zain [28], who observed a maximum shear bond strength of 64.3 N for Tetric-N-Flow bonded assemblies, which was higher than for Tetric-N-Flow bonded Heliosit® Orthodontic packable composite (Ivoclar Vivadent GmbH, Ellwangen, Germany) assemblies. Singh et al. also noted that the wire-composite combination of Respond (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA, USA) dead-soft wire with Tetric-N-Flow composite exhibited the maximum shear bond strength, surpassing that of G-aenial™ Universal Flo, microfilled hybrid composite (GC America Inc.) [33]. The enhanced shear bond strength of the flowable composite can be attributed to its filler content. The filler content of packable composite is 80% by weight, whereas that of Tetric-N-Flow is 63.8% by weight. With decreasing filler content, viscosity decreases, suggesting that Tetric-N-Flow would have superior flowability and wettability compared to the packable composite, thereby contributing to increased bond strength [33]. Contrary to our findings, Reicheneder et al. [29] and Al-Nimri et al. [23] reported that Transbond™ LR (3 M™ Unitek, Solventum, Germany) showed higher SBS compared to Tetric-EvoFlow™ (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), Stick®ORTHO flow (Stick Tech Ltd., Turku, Finland), and Filtek Z250 (3 M™ Unitek, Solventum, Germany). In these studies, the wires used were Bond-A-Braid™ (Reliance Orthodontic Products Inc., Itasca, USA) and GAC Wildcat® Twistflex Wire (Ortho-Care Ltd., Bradford, UK), respectively, which may account for the differences in the results observed. This suggests that additional factors, such as the diameter of the wire or the number of turns it possesses, could serve as determinants of shear bond strength [29].

Reynolds [38] discovered that materials utilized in orthodontic treatment should possess sufficient strength to endure forces ranging between 6 and 8 N. Similarly, Waters et al. noted that the typical force exerted during biting ranges from 3 to 18 Newtons [39]. In the current research, all tested retainer systems exhibited bond strengths exceeding expectations, indicating their suitability for practical use.

Accurately assessing the ARI is crucial as it plays a significant role in selecting an orthodontic adhesive. The ARI is among the most frequently employed methods for evaluating the bond quality between composite and tooth surfaces, as well as between composite and orthodontic appliances [40]. Studies have suggested that variations in ARI values signify differences in bond strength between the enamel and the adhesive for various adhesive systems. Nevertheless, there is a trend towards adhesive systems that leave minimal adhesive residue on the tooth surface, facilitating easier and safer removal of residual resin [19]. In a study conducted by Cooke et al., differences in ARI scores were investigated. It was proposed that the flexible wires (measuring 0.016 × 0.022 inches and three-stranded 0.0175 inches) placed between teeth were subjected to tension, causing them to bend. This bending likely resulted in cracks forming in the material adjacent to the wire, particularly at the junction between the wire and the material, ultimately leading to bond failure between the wire and the material [34].

In the current study, a notable difference was observed between the flowable and packable composite groups in terms of ARI. Flowable composite exhibited a higher frequency of ARI scores of 1 and 2, while packable composite showed a higher frequency of ARI scores of 0. In the combined group, there was a greater frequency of ARI scores of 0 and 1. There has long been debate among clinicians regarding whether bond strength between the tooth surface and the composite or easier debonding with less risk of enamel damage is more important [41]. A score of 2 or 3 on the ARI index indicates bond failure at the adhesive and retainer wire interface, leaving more composite on the tooth surface, which can lead to a more time-consuming debonding process and a higher risk of enamel damage [27, 42]. Conversely, scores of 0 or 1 on the ARI index signify bond failure at the enamel and adhesive interface, possibly due to incorrect bonding procedures or inadequate bond strength from the adhesive system [43]. In such cases, the debonding process is typically easier and less destructive to enamel integrity [42]. However, if clinicians must choose between easier debonding and optimal strength, the latter is generally preferred [42].

Considering that a good orthodontic biomaterial should ideally have an ARI value of 1 or 2 and a bond strength in the range of 5–50 MPa to withstand chewing forces [44], the combined group’s values, with a mean of 45.28 for shear bond strength and a high frequency of an ARI score of 1, fall within these optimal ranges, suggesting an adequate system.

Based on the wire pull-out test results, the packable composite exhibited statistically significantly higher detachment values than the combined group. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between flowable and packable composites. In contrast, it has been revealed that non-flowable composite for retainers generated stronger forces than flowable composite when cured with a light-curing device [22]. Packable composites require a stronger force for removal from surfaces due to their higher filler content and superior physical properties. Conversely, flowable resins typically exhibit lower strength compared to regular composites, but they offer greater flexibility due to their lower filler content. In materials composed of different components, this reduced filler content decreases the strength required to extract the wire [22].

Within the scope of our investigation, both shear bond strength and wire pull-out were quantified through laboratory measures. However, it is important to acknowledge that the present study may be limited in its ability to fully replicate clinical conditions [44]. An additional limitation worth noting is the use of bovine teeth as substitutes for real human samples. Empirical investigations may be necessary to assess the influence of salivary enzymes, the physiological mobility of dental structures, biomechanical stressors induced by tongue movement and chewing, as well as the effects of dental biofilm and mineralized deposits. These factors are crucial components of in vivo conditions that warrant further exploration.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, all tested groups exhibited adequate bonding strength suitable for clinical application. The combined application of flowable and packable composites for bonding fixed retainers demonstrated satisfactory shear bond strength and adequate ARI scores, with minimal detachment observed at the composite-wire interface (cohesive fracture). These findings suggest that the combined use of flowable and packable composites serves as a viable adhesive system for bonding orthodontic fixed retainers.

Data availability

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SBS:

Shear bond strength

ARI:

Adhesive remnant index

N:

Newtons

References

  1. Johnston CD, Littlewood SJ. Retention in orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2015;218(3):119–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pandis N, Vlahopoulos K, Madianos P, Eliades T. Long-term periodontal status of patients with mandibular lingual fixed retention. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(5):471–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139(5):614–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Renkema AM, Sips ET, Bronkhorst E, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A survey on orthodontic retention procedures in the Netherlands. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(4):432–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Egli F, Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 2-year follow-up of a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151(1):15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Levin L, Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Machtei EE. The association of orthodontic treatment and fixed retainers with gingival health. J Periodontol. 2008;79(11):2087–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rody WJ Jr., Akhlaghi H, Akyalcin S, Wiltshire WA, Wijegunasinghe M, Filho GN. Impact of orthodontic retainers on periodontal health status assessed by biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(6):1083–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Booth FA, Edelman JM, Proffit WR. Twenty-year follow-up of patients with permanently bonded mandibular canine-to-canine retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133(1):70–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Katsaros C, Livas C, Renkema AM. Unexpected complications of bonded mandibular lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132(6):838–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shah AA, Sandler PJ, Murray AM. How to … place a lower bonded retainer. J Orthod. 2005;32(3):206–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1991;25(10):619–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Segner D, Heinrici B. Bonded retainers–clinical reliability. J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61(5):352–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Iliadi A, Kloukos D, Gkantidis N, Katsaros C, Pandis N. Failure of fixed orthodontic retainers: a systematic review. J Dent. 2015;43(8):876–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Störmann I, Ehmer U. A prospective randomized study of different retainer types. J Orofac Orthop. 2002;63(1):42–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bolla E, Cozzani M, Doldo T, Fontana M. Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: a comparison between glass fiber-reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int Orthod. 2012;10(1):16–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tabrizi S, Salemis E, Usumez S. Flowable composites for bonding orthodontic retainers. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(1):195–200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Salih YA, Al-Janabi MF. Tensile force measurement by using different lingual retainer wires, bonding materials types and thickness (a comparative in vitro study). J Baghdad Coll Dentistry. 2014;26(2):167–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Al-Nimri K, Al-Nimri J. Shear bond strength of different fixed orthodontic retainers. Aust Orthod J. 2015;31(2):178–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. SachinShaji M, Antony G, Sudhakar SS, PrachiGaonkar DAK, Abraham A. An in-vitro study to compare efficacy of lingual retainer bonder with different adhesive system. Annals Romanian Soc Cell Biology. 2021;25(6):20883–91.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: a systematic review. J Orthod. 2006;33(3):205–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Elfakhri F, Alkahtani R, Li C, Khaliq J. Influence of filler characteristics on the performance of dental composites: a comprehensive review. Ceram Int. 2022;48:27280–94. 19, Part A).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Elaut J, Asscherickx K, Vande Vannet B, Wehrbein H. Flowable composites for bonding lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod. 2002;36(10):597–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Al-Nimri K, Al Habashneh R, Obeidat M. Gingival health and relapse tendency: a prospective study of two types of lower fixed retainers. Aust Orthod J. 2009;25(2):142–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19(5):501–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baysal A, Uysal T. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements for bonding orthodontic retainers. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(3):254–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Emran S, Barakati R. A method for stabilizing a lingual fixed retainer in place prior to bonding. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8(7):108–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Paolone G, Mandurino M, Baldani S, Paolone MG, Goracci C, Scolavino S, et al. Quantitative volumetric enamel loss after Orthodontic Debracketing/Debonding and Clean-Up procedures: a systematic review. Appl Sci. 2023;13(9):5369.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Radlanski RJ, Zain ND. Stability of the bonded lingual wire retainer-a study of the initial bond strength. J Orofac Orthop. 2004;65(4):321–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reicheneder C, Hofrichter B, Faltermeier A, Proff P, Lippold C, Kirschneck C. Shear bond strength of different retainer wires and bonding adhesives in consideration of the pretreatment process. Head Face Med. 2014;10:51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. de Carvalho MFF, Leijôto-Lannes ACN, Rodrigues MCN, Nogueira LC, Ferraz NKL, Moreira AN, et al. Viability of Bovine Teeth as a substrate in bond strength tests: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2018;20(6):471–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. ElSorogy M, Hanafy S, Yousry T, Zaher A. Comparative evaluation of failure of three different aged orthodontic bonded retainers related to vertical load: in vitro study. Egypt Orthodontic J. 2019;56(December 2019):39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Uysal T, Sari Z, Demir A. Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Angle Orthod. 2004;74(5):697–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Singh A, Kapoor S, Mehrotra P, Bhagchandani J, Agarwal S. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of different wire-composite combinations for Lingual Retention: an in Vitro Study. J Indian Orthodontic Soc. 2019;53(2):135–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cooke ME, Sherriff M. Debonding force and deformation of two multi-stranded lingual retainer wires bonded to incisor enamel: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(6):741–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Behnaz M, Dalaie K, Mirmohammadsadeghi H, Salehi H, Rakhshan V, Aslani F. Shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel using adhesive systems mixed with TiO2 nanoparticles. Dent Press J Orthod. 2018;23(4):43:e1-e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bearn DR, McCabe JF, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire-composite interface. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1997;111(1):67–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Geserick M, Ball J, Wichelhaus A. Bonding fiber-reinforced lingual retainers with color-reactivating flowable composite. J Clin Orthod. 2004;38(10):560–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Reynolds IR. A review of Direct Orthodontic Bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2(3):171–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Waters NE. Some mechanical and physical properties of teeth. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1980;34:99–135.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ryou DB, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(6):1105–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Montasser MA, Drummond JL. Reliability of the adhesive remnant index score system with different magnifications. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(4):773–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85(4):333–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Golshah A, Amiri Simkooei Z. Shear Bond Strength of Four Types of Orthodontic Retainers after Thermocycling and cyclic loading. Int J Dent. 2021;2021:9424040.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Sharma S, Tandon P, Nagar A, Singh GP, Singh A, Chugh VK. A comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives. J Orthod Sci. 2014;3(2):29–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthodontic Research Center, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Yasaman Alamdarloo & Farzaneh Golfeshan

  2. Department of Research Analytics, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha University, Chennai, India

    Seyed Ali Mosaddad

  3. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Seyed Ali Mosaddad

Authors
  1. Yasaman Alamdarloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seyed Ali Mosaddad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farzaneh Golfeshan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: F.G. and Y.A.; Methodology: F.G. and Y.A.; Software: F.G. and Y.A.; Validation: F.G. and Y.A.; Formal analysis: F.G. and Y.A.; Investigation: F.G. and Y.A.; Resources: F.G., Y.A., and S.A.M.; Data Curation: F.G. and Y.A.; Writing - Original Draft: F.G. and Y.A.; Writing - Review & Editing: F.G., Y.A., and S.A.M.; Visualization: S.A.M; Supervision: F.G. and S.A.M.; Project administration: F.G. and S.A.M. The published version of the manuscript has been read and approved by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farzaneh Golfeshan.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Shiraz University of Medical Science (IR.SUMS.DENTAL.REC.1401.063).

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alamdarloo, Y., Mosaddad, S.A. & Golfeshan, F. Mechanical properties of combined packable and high-filled flowable composite used for the fixed retainer: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 24, 676 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04437-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04437-w

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us