Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2025
07:42
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
408
Tooth mobility restriction by multistranded and CAD/CAM retainers-an in vitro study
Christoph J Roser1, Stefan Rues2, Ralf Erber1
1Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.
European Journal of Orthodontics
|December 12, 2023
Summary
This study found that different CAD/CAM retainers impact tooth mobility differently, with some restricting horizontal movement more than others. Further in vivo research is needed to understand the clinical implications of these findings on orthodontic retainers.
Area of Science:
- Biomaterials Science
- Orthodontics
- Dental Materials
Background:
- Orthodontic retainers are crucial for maintaining tooth alignment post-treatment.
- Minimizing restriction of physiological tooth mobility is a key goal for retainer design.
- Limited data exists on the impact of novel Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) retainers on tooth mobility compared to traditional multistranded types.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the in vitro restriction of physiological tooth mobility caused by multistranded retainers and various CAD/CAM retainers.
- To evaluate the influence of different CAD/CAM materials (NiTi, Ti5, PEEK, ZrO2, CoCr) on vertical and horizontal tooth mobility.
Main Methods:
- An in vitro model of a lower arch was used to test eight multistranded retainers and five types of CAD/CAM retainers (NiTi, Ti5, PEEK, ZrO2, CoCr), each with n=8.
- Retainers were bonded from canine to canine.
- Vertical and horizontal tooth mobility were measured using a universal testing machine, and load-deflection curves were analyzed.
Main Results:
- All tested retainers restricted tooth mobility to varying degrees.
- Vertical tooth mobility restriction showed minimal differences between retainers (14%-38%).
- Significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) were observed in horizontal tooth mobility restriction: ZrO2 (82%), CoCr (75%), and PEEK (73%) CAD/CAM retainers restricted mobility the most, while Ti5 (54%) and NiTi (34%) CAD/CAM retainers, along with multistranded retainers (44%), showed less restriction.
Conclusions:
- Multistranded and CAD/CAM retainers exert different effects on tooth mobility in vitro.
- CAD/CAM retainers made of ZrO2, CoCr, and PEEK significantly restrict horizontal tooth mobility more than Ti5, NiTi, and multistranded retainers.
- Further in vivo studies are necessary to translate these in vitro findings into clinical practice and assess long-term effects.
