WIBLE-THESIS-2017.pdf (3.1 MB)

Long-Term Mechanical and Physical Effects of Various Cleaning Methods on Retainer Thermoplastics

Download (3.1 MB)
thesis
posted on 08.02.2018, 00:00 by Emily Wible
Hypothesis: Essix-ACE® and Essix-C+® have no differences in long-term translucency, flexibility, or surface-roughness from 8 different cleaning methods. Objective: To evaluate if there are significant differences in initial translucency, flexibility, or surface-roughness between Essix-ACE® and Essix-C+®. To evaluate if there are significant differences in translucency, flexibility, or surface-roughness after long-term exposure to different cleaning methods in Essix-ACE® and Essix-C+®. Methods: For a 6-month period, 10 specimens (2x0.5x0.04in) of Essix-ACE® and Essix-C+® (Dentsply-Raintree-Essix) were exposed to 8 different cleaning methods (Invisalign® Cleaning Crystals, Retainer Brite®, Polident®, Listerine®, 2.5% vinegar, 0.5% NaOCl, 3% H2O2, and toothbrushing) twice a week. The specimens were stored in 37°C artificial saliva when not being cleaned. At baseline and 6-months, translucency, flexibility, and surface-roughness of the specimens were quantified. Qualitative evaluation of surface-roughness of specimens from each cleaning method was evaluated after 6-months using a scanning-electron-microscope. Student t-tests and ANOVA statistical analyses were used at a significance level of 0.05. Results: There were differences in translucency, flexibility, and surface-roughness between Essix-ACE® and Essix-C+® before exposure to different cleaning methods. Both Essix-ACE® and Essix-C+® demonstrated statistically significant less translucency between baseline and 6-month in all cleaning methods. Essix-ACE® showed statistically significant differences in flexibility in all cleaning methods except Invisalign® Cleaning Crystals and Retainer Brite®. Listerine® affected the translucency of Essix-ACE® significantly more than other methods except toothbrushing, while there was no difference in translucency among the methods in Essix-C+®. Qualitative study did not show any distinctive surface-roughness differences when compared to untreated materials. Conclusions: Over the 6-month period, the translucency of Essix-ACE® and Essix-C+® were significantly decreased between 6-months and baseline for all different cleaning methods. The results of flexibility and surface-roughness were varied. None of the cleaning methods were ideal for Essix ACE® or Essix C+®.

History

Advisor

Atsawasuwan, Phimon

Chair

Atsawasuwan, Phimon

Department

Orthodontics

Degree Grantor

University of Illinois at Chicago

Degree Level

Masters

Committee Member

Megremis, Spiro Evans, Carla Viana, Grace

Submitted date

December 2017

Issue date

18/09/2017

Exports

Categories

Exports