Author:
Ashari Asma,Nik Mustapha Nik Mukhriz,Yuen Jonathan Jun Xian,Saw Zhi Kuan,Lau May Nak,Xian Lew,Syed Mohamed Alizae Marny Fadzlin,Megat Abdul Wahab Rohaya,Yeoh Chiew Kit,Deva Tata Malathi,Sinnasamy Sindhu
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
To compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley retainers (HRs) and modified vacuum-formed retainers (mVFRs) with palatal coverage in maintaining transverse expansion throughout a 24-month retention period and to assess the subjects’ perception toward the retainers.
Materials and methods
The trial accomplished blinding only by the outcome assessor and data analyst. Data were collected from post-orthodontic treatment patients who met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five subjects were randomly allocated using a centralized randomization technique into either mVFR (n = 18) or HR group (n = 17). Dental casts of subjects were evaluated at debond (T0), 3-month (T1), 6-month (T2), 12-month (T3), and 24-month retention (T4). The intercanine width (ICW), interpremolar width (IPMW), interfirst molar mesiobuccal cusp width (IFMW1), and interfirst molar distobuccal cusp width (IFMW2) were compared between groups over time using Mixed ANOVA. A pilot-tested and validated questionnaire consisting of six items were given at T4. Subjects were instructed to rate their retainer in terms of fitting, speech, appearance, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort on a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
Results
No statistically significant differences in arch width were found between the two groups at ICW (P = .83), IPMW (P = 0.63), IFMW1 (P = .22), and IFMW2 (P = .46) during the 24-month retention period. Also, no statistically significant differences were found between perception of both retainers in terms of fitting, speech, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort (P > .05) after 24-month wear. The appearance of mVFRs was rated significantly higher compared to HRs (P < .05).
Conclusions
HR and mVFR have similar clinical effectiveness for retention of transverse expansion cases in a 24-month retention period. Both retainers were perceived to be equal in terms of fitting, speech, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort. Subjects in the mVFRs group found their retainers to be significantly more esthetic than those in HRs group.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference45 articles.
1. Hawley CA. A removable retainer. Int J Orthod Oral Surg. 1919;5(6):291–305.
2. Ab Rahman N, Low TF, Idris NS. A survey on retention practice among orthodontists in Malaysia. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(1):36.
3. Radha SR, Singaraju GS, Mandava P, Ganugapanta VR, Bapireddy H, Pilli LN. A survey of retention practices and protocols followed among orthodontists in India. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021;13(Suppl 1):S149–56.
4. Meade MJ, Millett D. Retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers among specialist orthodontists. J Orthod. 2013;40(4):318–25.
5. Padmos JAD, Fudalej PS, Renkema AM. Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;153(4):496–504.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献