Literature DB >> 16429880

A comprehensive survey of retention procedures in Australia and New Zealand.

Pamela M Wong1, Terry J Freer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This survey aimed to identify consistencies in retention procedures.
METHODS: Three hundred Australian orthodontists and 70 New Zealand orthodontists were randomly selected for the study. A questionnaire gathered their views regarding the most commonly used retainers, wire types and sizes of bonded retainers, factors influencing the design of retainers, duration of regular retention, definition of permanent retention, percentage of cases that needed permanent retention, factors influencing the decision to use permanent retention, changes in retention protocols over the last five years, and reasons for such changes.
RESULTS: Upper invisible and lower canine-to-canine bonded retainers were the most commonly used retainers. Pretreatment tooth position was the major factor influencing the design of retainers, and most respondents preferred bonded retainers. The majority preferred multistrand stainless steel wire for bonded retainers. The most common wire size was 0.0175 inch. Orthodontists more commonly recommended a regular retention period of more than two years, and defined permanent retention as "lifetime". Orthodontists applied permanent retention to either a very high or very low percentage of their cases. A high percentage of respondents made changes to their retention protocols over the past five years. There was no relationship between factors influencing the design of retainers and the preferred type of retainer. There was no consensus on the major factor influencing the decision to use permanent retention.
CONCLUSIONS: Retention procedures are variable and dependent largely on personal preferences. There does not seem to be any consistent pattern in the application of retention methodologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 16429880

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust Orthod J        ISSN: 0587-3908


  17 in total

1.  Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eleftherios G Kaklamanos; Maria Kourakou; Dimitrios Kloukos; Ioannis Doulis; Smaragda Kavvadia
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 2.634

2.  Factors influencing fixed retention practices in German-speaking Switzerland: A survey.

Authors:  Sina N Arnold; Nikolaos Pandis; Raphael Patcas
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Novel lingual retainer created using CAD/CAM technology: evaluation of its positioning accuracy.

Authors:  M Wolf; P Schumacher; F Jäger; J Wego; U Fritz; H Korbmacher-Steiner; A Jäger; M Schauseil
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Repeated bonding of fixed retainer increases the risk of enamel fracture.

Authors:  Netrporn Chinvipas; Yuh Hasegawa; Kazuto Terada
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 2.634

5.  Patient attitudes toward retention and perceptions of treatment success.

Authors:  Nikolay D Mollov; Steven J Lindauer; Al M Best; Bhavna Shroff; Eser Tufekci
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Approaches of Turkish Dentists in Cases of Orthodontic Lingual Retainer Failures.

Authors:  Abdurahman Küçükönder; Ömer Hatipoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2020-09-28

7.  Anterior tooth alignment: A comparison of orthodontic retention regimens 5 years posttreatment.

Authors:  Ragnar Bjering; Kari Birkeland; Vaska Vandevska-Radunovic
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Evaluation of retention protocols among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States.

Authors:  Michael C Pratt; George Thomas Kluemper; James K Hartsfield; David Fardo; David A Nash
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.711

9.  A survey on retention practice among orthodontists in Malaysia.

Authors:  Norma Ab Rahman; Tze Fui Low; Nur Shaheera Idris
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 10.  In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review.

Authors:  Anca Victoria Labunet; Mîndra Badea
Journal:  Clujul Med       Date:  2015-07-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.