Abstract
The aim of this study was to produce a 3D mesh of defect free electrospun cellulose acetate nanofibres and to use this to produce a prototype composite resin containing nanofibre fillers. This might find use as an aesthetic orthodontic bracket material or composite veneer for restorative dentistry. In this laboratory based study cellulose acetate was dissolved in an acetone and dimethylacetamide solvent solution and electrospun. The spinning parameters were optimised and lithium chloride added to the solution to produce a self supporting nanofibre mesh. This mesh was then silane coated and infiltrated with either epoxy resin or an unfilled Bis-GMA resin. The flexural strength of the produced samples was measured and compared to that of unfilled resin samples. Using this method cellulose acetate nanofibres were successfully electrospun in the 286 nm range. However, resin infiltration of this mesh resulted in samples with a flexural strength less than that of the unfilled control samples. Air inclusion during preparation and incomplete wetting of the nanofibre mesh was thought to cause this reduction in flexural strength. Further work is required to reduce the air inclusions before the true effect of resin reinforcement with a 3D mesh of cellulose acetate nanofibres can be determined.
Highlights
IntroductionLabial fixed appliances are still the most popular fixed appliance and the aesthetic brackets currently available are of two main types, ceramic and polymeric
In recent years there has been an ever increasing demand for more aesthetic orthodontic appliances.Labial fixed appliances are still the most popular fixed appliance and the aesthetic brackets currently available are of two main types, ceramic and polymeric
We have previously reported that it is possible to produce silica nanofibres using an electrospinning technique, which can provide fibre reinforcement of composite materials [4]
Summary
Labial fixed appliances are still the most popular fixed appliance and the aesthetic brackets currently available are of two main types, ceramic and polymeric. While both demonstrate good aesthetics at placement, they each suffer from drawbacks during clinical use [1]. Ceramic brackets are made from either mono or polycrystalline alumina, which is relatively inert and retains an aesthetic appearance throughout a two year course of fixed appliance therapy. This material has a low fracture toughness and a high surface hardness. As a result it is not uncommon for ceramic orthodontic brackets to fracture in thin section, principally at the tie wings during service
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
