Home > Journals > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2015 December;64(6) > Minerva Stomatologica 2015 December;64(6):323-33



Publishing options
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Cite this article as



Minerva Stomatologica 2015 December;64(6):323-33


language: English, Italian

Fiber reinforced composites orthodontic retainers

Lucchese A. 1, 2, Manuelli M. 1, 2, Bassani L. 1, 2, Albertini P. 1, 2, Matarese G. 3, Perillo L. 4, Gastaldi G. 1, 2, Gherlone E. F. 1, 2

1 Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Vita‑Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy; 2 Research in Dentofacial Orthopedics, Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Research Area in Oral Pathology and Implantology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy; 3 Department of Specialist Medical‑Surgical, Experimental Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy; 4 Department of Orthodontics, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy


AIM: Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to hold teeth in their corrected positions after orthodontic therapy is completed. The aim of this study was to consider fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) as a possible alternative to conventional multistranded stainless steel wire for retention through SEM analysis.
METHODS: Two different FRC orthodontic retainers were investigated, i.e. Everstick® (Stick Tech Ltd, Turku, Finland) (type A, 24 samples), with a diameter of 0.76 mm made of glass fibers and a Young’s modulus of elasticity of 28 gpa, and Ribbond® (Ribbond, Inc., Seattle, Washington, WA, USA) (type B, 24 samples), with ultra high molecular weight and with an high Young’s modulus of elasticity by polyethylene fibers cold treated with plasma gas. Six groups were created: control groups A1 and B1, composed by 8 type A and 8 type B samples without impregnation and only with fluid resin before curing; groups A2 and B2, composed respectively by 8 type A and 8 type B samples impregnated with fluid resin Heliobond for 6 seconds; groups A3 and B3, composed respectively by 8 type A and 8 type B samples impregnated with fluid resin Heliobond for 6 minutes before curing.
RESULTS: Cross- and lengthwise SEM analysis of the sectioned samples made showed that fiber without impregnation with fluid resin, before curing, showed interwoven and straight directed cylindrical fibers. The SEM analysis denoted that the two types of fiber shows structural characteristics differing in dimension, number, diameter and orientation of FRC without a preliminary treatment through impregnation of the fibers with fluid resin.
CONCLUSION: An impregnation time of 6 seconds could considerably reduced voids, crazes and microcracks of the fibers, making them more resistant to the other oral and bacterial agents. A larger time of impregnation (6 minutes), with fluid resin before hardening, further enhances the morphological characteristics of the FRC.

top of page