Objective: Lingual retainers are used to stabilize the results of orthodontic treatment in the anterior region for aesthetic purposes. The fabrication of lingual retainers involves plaster models, the cost of impression materials, shipping procedures, and a laboratory stage. With advances in digital technology, intraoral scanning can be used in dentistry for additive manufacturing to eliminate contamination during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) period. The use of 3D printers to make lingual retainers shortens production steps and lowers costs. In addition, eliminating the impression stage reduces chairside time, and minimizes orthodontist-patient contact. This analytic study aims to compare the conventional and digital fabrication of intraoral retainers regarding time and cost. Material and Methods: A total of 20 jaws were selected, and indirect retainers were fabricated by two different methods on 10 jaws in each group. The conventional method was comprised of impression and gypsum models, whereas the digital method made use of intraoral scanning and 3D printing. The time consumption was recorded, and the cost of the materials was calculated. Results: The mean of total cost and time were 7.04+/-0.9 dollars and 68+/-1.8 minutes, respectively, for the conventional method. Meanwhile, the digital method had 33+/-2.7 minutes for the total time and 1.15+/-0.3 dollars for the total cost. The results, which were obtained from both methods, were observed to be statistically significant (p<0.001). Conclusion: The digital method has advantages in terms of time and cost. With the 3D technique, the risk of cross-infection has been reduced due to factors such as the shorter duration of jaw opening during the COVID-19 period.
Keywords: Lingual retainer; cross-infection; 3D printing
Amaç: Lingual retainerlar, estetik amaçlı olarak ağızda ön bölgede ortodontik tedavi sonuçlarını sabitlemek için kullanılır. Lingual retainer üretimi, alçı modeli yapımını, ölçü malzemelerinin maliyetini, nakliye prosedürlerini ve bir laboratuvar aşamasını içerir. Dijital teknolojideki ilerlemelerle ağız içi tarama, diş hekimliğinde koronavirüs hastalığı-2019 [coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)] döneminde kontaminasyonu ortadan kaldırmak amacıyla aditif üretim için kullanılabilir. Üç boyutlu yazıcıların lingual retainer yapımında kullanılması üretim adımlarını kısaltır ve maliyetleri düşürür. Ayrıca, ölçü aşamasının ortadan kaldırılması, dişçi koltuğunda geçirilen süreyi azaltır ve ortodontist-hasta temasını en aza indirir. Bu analitik çalışma, intraoral tutucuların geleneksel ve dijital üretimini zaman ve maliyet açısından karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Toplam 20 çene seçildi ve her grupta 10 çenede iki farklı yöntemle indirekt tutucular üretildi. Geleneksel yöntem, ölçü ve alçı modellerinden oluşurken, dijital yöntemde, ağız içi tarama ve 3D baskıdan yararlanıldı. Zaman tüketimi kaydedildi ve malzemelerin maliyeti hesaplandı. Bulgular: Geleneksel yöntem için toplam maliyet ve süre ortalaması sırasıyla 7,04+/-0,9 dolar ve 68+/-1,8 dk idi. Bu arada dijital yöntemde toplam süre için 33+/-2,7 dk ve toplam maliyet için 1,15+/-0,3 dolar olarak gerçekleşti. Her iki yöntemden elde edilen sonuçların istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu görüldü (p<0,001). Sonuç: Dijital yöntemin zaman ve maliyet açısından avantajları vardır. 3D tekniği ile COVID-19 döneminde ağzın açık kalma süresinin daha kısa olması gibi etkenlerden dolayı çapraz enfeksiyon riski azaltılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Lingual retainer; çapraz enfeksiyon; 3D baskı
- World Health Organization. Responding to community spread of COVID-19: interim guidance, 7 March 2020. World Health Organization; 2020. [Link]
- Harrison R. Environmental Pollutant Exposures and Public Health. 1st ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2020. [Crossref]
- Kaur H, Kochhar AS, Gupta H, Singh G, Kubavat A. Appropriate orthodontic appliances during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020;10(4):782-7. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- World Health Organization. Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): situation report, 3. World Health Organization; 2020. [Link]
- World Health Organization. Considerations for the provision of essential oral health services in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance, 3 August 2020. World Health Organization; 2020. [Link]
- Kocher KE, Gebistorf MC, Pandis N, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. Survival of maxillary and mandibular bonded retainers 10 to 15 years after orthodontic treatment: a retrospective observational study. Prog Orthod. 2019;20(1):28. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(5):614-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Habegger M, Renkema AM, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. A survey of general dentists regarding orthodontic retention procedures. Eur J Orthod. 2017;39(1):69-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Nivedha VM, Balakrishnan N, Sreenivasagan S. Knowledge, attitude, and awareness on the protocols and trends in orthodontic retention among dental students. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2022;13(Suppl 2):S514-S518. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Steegmans PAJ, Cavagnetto D, Reynders RAM. Which orthodontic retention protocol should I implement? A critical assessment of a randomised controlled trial. Evid Based Dent. 2022;23(4):162-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Baba K. Paradigm shifts in prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res. 2014;58(1):1-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(7):1759-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Berger L, Adler W, Kreuzer MMK, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Comparison of digital and conventional impressions based on the 3D fit of crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2022;35(6):801-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5):829. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Cicciù M, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C, Gambino D, Amantia EM, Laino L, et al. 3D digital impression systems compared with traditional techniques in dentistry: a recent data systematic review. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(8):1982. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:10. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
.: Process List