Purpose: To compare failure rates and maximum load capacity (F_max) of six different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) retainers with those of the hand-bent five-stranded stainless steel twistflex retainer. Materials and methods: Six groups (n = 8 per group) of commercially available CAD/CAM retainers (cobalt–chromium [CoCr], titanium grade 5 [Ti5], nickel–titanium [NiTi], zirconia [ZrO₂], polyetheretherketone [PEEK], and gold) and twistflex retainers were tested for long-term sufficiency and for F_max using a self-developed in vitro model. All retainer models underwent a simulated ageing process of about 15 years (1,200,000 chewing cycles with a force magnitude of 65 N at 45° followed by storage in water at 37 °C for 30 days). If retainers did not debond or break during ageing, their F_max was determined in a universal testing machine. Data were statistically analysed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U‑tests. Results: Twistflex retainers did not fail (0/8) during ageing and had the highest F_max (445 N ± 51 N). Ti5 retainers were the only CAD/CAM retainers that also did not fail (0/8) and had similar F_max values (374 N ± 62 N). All other CAD/CAM retainers had higher failure rates during ageing and significantly lower F_max values (p < 0.01; ZrO₂: 1/8, 168 N ± 52 N; gold: 3/8, 130 N ± 52 N; NiTi: 5/8, 162 N ± 132 N; CoCr: 6/8, 122 N ± 100 N; PEEK: 8/8, 65 ± 0 N). Failure was due to breakage in the NiTi retainers and debonding in all other retainers. Conclusion: Twistflex retainers remain the gold standard regarding biomechanical properties and long-term sufficiency. Of the CAD/CAM retainers tested, Ti5 retainers seem to be the most suitable alternative. In contrast, all other CAD/CAM retainers investigated in this study showed high failure rates and had significantly lower F_max values.

Objectives: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image quality can be severely impaired by artifacts caused by fixed orthodontic retainers. In clinical practice, there is a trend towards using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) retainers. This study aimed to quantify MRI artifacts produced by these novel CAD/CAM retainers. Material and methods: Three CAD/CAM retainers and a stainless-steel retainer (“Twistflex”; clinical reference standard) were scanned in vitro at 3-T MRI using a high-resolution 3D sequence. The artifact diameters and three-dimensional artifact volumes (AV) were determined for all mandibular (AV_mand) and maxillary (AV_max) retainers. Moreover, the corresponding ratio of artifact volume to retainer volume (AV/RV_mand, AV/RV_max) was calculated. Results: Twistflex caused large artifact volumes (AV_mand: 13530 mm³; AV_max: 15642 mm³; AV/RV_mand: 2602; AV/RV_max: 2235). By contrast, artifact volumes for CAD/CAM retainers were substantially smaller: whereas artifact volumes for cobalt–chromium retainers were moderate (381 mm³; 394 mm³; 39; 31), grade-5 titanium (110 mm³; 126 mm³; 12; 12) and nickel–titanium (54 mm³; 78 mm³; 12; 14) both produced very small artifact volumes. Conclusion: All CAD/CAM retainers caused substantially smaller volumes of MRI artifacts compared to Twistflex. Grade-5 titanium and nickel–titanium CAD/CAM retainers showed the smallest artifact volumes. Clinical relevance: CAD/CAM retainers made from titanium or nickel–titanium may not relevantly impair image quality in head/neck and dental MRI. Artifacts caused by cobalt–chromium CAD/CAM retainers may mask nearby dental/periodontal structures. In contrast, the large artifacts caused by Twistflex are likely to severely impair diagnosis of oral and adjacent pathologies.

(1) Background: Novel high-performance polymers for medical 3D printing enable in-office manufacturing of fully customized brackets. Previous studies have investigated clinically relevant parameters such as manufacturing precision, torque transmission, and fracture stability. The aim of this study is to evaluate different design options of the bracket base concerning the adhesive bond between the bracket and tooth, measured as the shear bond strength (SBS) and maximum force (F_max) according to DIN 13990. (2) Methods: Three different designs for printed bracket bases were compared with a conventional metal bracket (C). The following configurations were chosen for the base design: Matching of the base to the anatomy of the tooth surface, size of the cross-sectional area corresponding to the control group (C), and a micro- (A) and macro- (B) retentive design of the base surface. In addition, a group with a micro-retentive base (D) matched to the tooth surface and an increased size was studied. The groups were analyzed for SBS, F_max, and adhesive remnant index (ARI). The Kruskal–Wallis test with a post hoc test (Dunn–Bonferroni) and Mann–Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis (significance level: p < 0.05). (3) Results: The values for SBS and F_max were highest in C (SBS: 12.0 ± 3.8 MPa; F_max: 115.7 ± 36.6 N). For the printed brackets, there were significant differences between A and B (A: SBS 8.8 ± 2.3 MPa, F_max 84.7 ± 21.8 N; B: SBS 12.0 ± 2.1 MPa, F_max 106.5 ± 20.7 N). F_max was significantly different for A and D (D: F_max 118.5 ± 22.8 N). The ARI score was highest for A and lowest for C. (4) Conclusions: This study shows that conventional brackets form a more stable bond with the tooth than the 3D-printed brackets. However, for successful clinical use, the shear bond strength of the printed brackets can be increased with a macro-retentive design and/or enlargement of the base.

Manufacturing of Fränkel's functional regulator 3 (FR3) is complicated and requires extensive knowledge from the dental technician. To determine whether FR3s produced by CAD/CAM techniques (CAD-FR3) meet similar mechanical properties like conventional FR3s (Con-FR3), for each of 10 patient cases, three CAD-FR3 designs (palatal connector cross-section 3 × 3 mm, 4 × 1 mm or 5 × 2 mm) and one Con-FR3 were subjected to cyclic loading and subsequent fracture testing in a universal testing device. Transversal load capacity (F_max(FR3)) and stiffness were compared among the different CAD-FR3 designs and Con-FR3s using Friedman and Wilcoxon tests with a significance level of α = 0.05. All CAD-FR3 designs had significantly higher mean F_max(FR3) (p ≤ 0.007) and stiffness (p ≤ 0.005) than the Con-FR3s. The CAD-FR3_3×3 had the highest mean F_max(FR3) (98.2 ± 26.2 N) and stiffness (37.1 ± 15.5 N/mm), closely followed by the CAD-FR3_5×2 (F_max(FR3): 90.3 ± 24.7 N; stiffness: 30.0 ± 12.3 N/mm). Among the CAD appliances, CAD-FR3_4×1 had the lowest values (p ≤ 0.007 for all pairwise tests) with F_max(FR3) of 45.8 ± 17.9 N and stiffness of 12.5 ± 7.3 N/mm. CAD-FR3s have superior mechanical properties in comparison to Con-FR3s if certain design parameters are followed. Further clinical investigations have to examine if they can serve as an alternative in practice.