Literature DB >> 18004927

Which way forward? Fixed or removable lower retainers.

Nikki Atack1, Nigel Harradine, Jonathan R Sandy, Anthony J Ireland.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether lower lingual, canine to canine, bonded multistrand retainers prevent relapse of lower labial segment alignment following fixed appliance therapy and to compare this with lower Hawley-type removable retainers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of 29 patients were identified. Group 1 had bonded lower canine to canine multistrand retainers placed following debonding, whereas Group 2 had lower Hawley-type retainers (with acrylic labial to the incisors) fitted following debonding. Study models were taken of all patients at debonding (T(1)) and at least 1 year post debonding (T(2)). Changes in Little's index over the study period were recorded using a reflex microscope.
RESULTS: Statistically significant changes in Little's index occurred in the lower labial segment of both study groups (P = .001) over the observation period. There was no statistically significant difference in the amount of change in Little's index between the bonded and removable retainer groups (P = .13). Bonded retainers tended to be placed in older patients (P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Relapse can occur in the lower labial segment with both fixed and removable retainers. The amount of relapse seen with both types of retainer is not statistically significantly different.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18004927     DOI: 10.2319/103106-449.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  9 in total

1.  Retention Protocols and Factors Affecting Retainer Choice among Iraqi Orthodontists.

Authors:  Mushriq F Abid; Ali M Al-Attar; Akram F Alhuwaizi
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2020-10-23

Review 2.  Efficacy of CAD/CAM Technology in Interventions Implemented in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Carlos M Ardila; Andrés Elorza-Durán; Daniel Arrubla-Escobar
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 3.246

3.  A retrospective randomized double-blind comparison study of the effectiveness of Hawley vs vacuum-formed retainers.

Authors:  Stephen Barlin; Roland Smith; Ray Reed; Jonathan Sandy; Anthony John Ireland
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  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

5.  Enhancement of orthodontic anchorage and retention by the local injection of strontium: An experimental study in rats.

Authors:  Munad J Al-Duliamy; Nidhal H Ghaib; Omar A Kader; Bashar H Abdullah
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2014-10-24

Review 6.  Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention.

Authors:  Cleo Wouters; Toon A Lamberts; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Anne Marie Renkema
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 1.826

Review 7.  Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.

Authors:  Simon J Littlewood; Declan T Millett; Bridget Doubleday; David R Bearn; Helen V Worthington
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-01-29

8.  Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers.

Authors:  Abdullah Demir; Hasan Babacan; Ruhi Nalcacı; Tolga Topcuoglu
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 1.372

9.  A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention.

Authors:  Alvyda Andriekute; Arunas Vasiliauskas; Antanas Sidlauskas
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 2.750

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.