Literature DB >> 19837746

Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study.

Michel P E Tacken1, Jan Cosyn, Peter De Wilde, Johan Aerts, Elke Govaerts, Bart Vande Vannet.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare glass fibre reinforced (GFR) with multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers in terms of success rate and periodontal implications. A 2 year parallel study was conducted of 184 patients scheduled to receive bonded retainers in the upper and lower anterior segments. In three centres, the patients (mean age 14 years; 90 males and 94 females) were sequentially assigned to receive GFR retainers containing 500 unidirectional glass fibres (GFR500), 1000 unidirectional glass fibres (GFR1000), or multistranded retainers (gold standard). Retainer failures and periodontal conditions were monitored every 6 months. In a control group of 90 subjects without retainers, periodontal conditions were examined (negative control). Of the 274 recruited patients, 15 dropped out during the 2 year study period. Kaplan-Meier plots were drawn to assess survival of the different retainers. The Mantel-Cox log-rank test was used to identify significant differences in survival functions among the groups. Repeated measures analysis of variance and appropriate post hoc tests were adopted to evaluate periodontal conditions over time. GFR retainers showed unacceptably high failure rates in comparison with multistranded retainers (51 versus 12 per cent). The most significant periodontal conditions were found in patients with GFR retainers with no significant differences between the GFR500 and the GFR1000 group for any parameter at any time point. Subjects without retainers showed significantly lower levels of gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation when compared with patients in any retainer group. Multistranded retainers should remain the gold standard for orthodontic retention, although periodontal complications are common. The use of GFR retainers should be discouraged in daily practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19837746     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp100

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  19 in total

1.  Upper bonded retainers.

Authors:  Eva Schneider; Sabine Ruf
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-06-09       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints.

Authors:  Andrea Scribante; Maria Francesca Sfondrini; Simona Broggini; Marina D'Allocco; Paola Gandini
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2011-10-27

3.  Fatigue resistance, debonding force, and failure type of fiber-reinforced composite, polyethylene ribbon-reinforced, and braided stainless steel wire lingual retainers in vitro.

Authors:  Dave Lie Sam Foek; Enver Yetkiner; Mutlu Ozcan
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 1.372

4.  Clinical evaluation of bond failures and survival between mandibular canine-to-canine retainers made of flexible spiral wire and fiber-reinforced composite.

Authors:  Maria F Sfondrini; Danilo Fraticelli; Linda Castellazzi; Andrea Scribante; Paola Gandini
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2014-04-01

5.  Two-year survival analysis of twisted wire fixed retainer versus spiral wire and fiber-reinforced composite retainers: a preliminary explorative single-blind randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Farhad Sobouti; Vahid Rakhshan; Mahdi Gholamrezaei Saravi; Ali Zamanian; Mahsa Shariati
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 6.  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

7.  Comparison of survival time between two types of orthodontic fixed retainer: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Parisa Salehi; Hooman Zarif Najafi; Seyyed Mehdi Roeinpeikar
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 2.750

8.  Evaluation of load-deflection properties of fiber-reinforced composites and its comparison with stainless steel wires.

Authors:  Shiva Alavi; Tayebe Mamavi
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2014-03

9.  Covering of fiber-reinforced composite bars by adhesive materials, is it necessary to improve the bond strength of lingual retainers?

Authors:  Farzin Heravi; Navid Kerayechian; Saied Mostafa Moazzami; Hooman Shafaee; Parya Heravi
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec

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.