| Abstrakt: |
Introduction: An innovative retention protocol was developed to create a new 3D‐printed fixed retainer employing SprintRay OnX nanoceramic hybrid resin. The feasibility and usability of the retainer were subsequently evaluated. Methods: Identification and characterization of SprintRay OnX was done using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X‐ray (SEM‐EDX), field emission scanning electron microscope (FE‐SEM), X‐ray diffraction (XRD), and flexural strength. Load–deflection and pull‐out tests were conducted on the 3D‐printed straight wires, with three distinct cross‐sectional geometries: round (1 mm), oval (1 mm × 1.5 mm) and semielliptical (1 mm × 1.5 mm). Twisted G&H and coaxial Respond stainless steel multistrand retainers were used for comparison. In the load–deflection test, a three‐point bending test (3PBT) was employed. For the pull‐out test, the retainer wire was inserted into the composite, which was placed in a centrally located hole of an acrylic block; the retainer wire was subjected to a tensile force along its long axis. Results: Characteristic bands close to those of PMMA were observed in the FTIR spectra. SEM‐EDX and XRD revealed a crystalline material with homogeneously distributed Yb element signals (19.4%). On FE‐SEM micrographs, small clumps were displayed on smooth surfaces. The flexural strength and the flexural modulus were, respectively, 142.48 MPa and 7.842 GPa. All groups of 3D‐printed wires exhibited significantly higher load–deflection levels than the multistrand wires (MSWs). Concerning pull‐out forces, they fell in between twisted G&H (96 N) and coaxial Respond (48.09 N) retainer wires. The 3D‐printed wires fractured cohesively without detachment from the adhesive, suggesting that the chemical bond was adequate for satisfactory wire integration, yet the wire's strength was compromised. Concerning the cross‐sectional geometry, the load–deflection and the pull‐out forces of 3D‐printed oval and semielliptical wires were significantly higher than that of 3D‐printed round wires, which was attributed to the larger cross‐sections of the wires. Conclusion: Oval and semielliptical 3D‐printed wires offered favorable features as lingual retainers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Plný text