Literature DB >> 20152670

Results of a survey-based study to identify common retention practices in the United States.

Manish Valiathan1, Eric Hughes.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this descriptive study was to use a carefully constructed, pilot-tested survey instrument to identify the most common orthodontic retainers and retention protocols prescribed in the United States as reported by active members of the American Association of Orthodontists.
METHODS: We randomly selected 2000 active members, stratified by region of practice, for the study. Information gathered included, but was not limited to, the types of retainers prescribed in the maxillary and mandibular arches, duration of full-time and part-time wear, use of fixed retainers, appliances fabricated in office vs commercial laboratories, the number of debonds per year, and retention appointment schedules. The survey consisted of 20 questions. Data were gathered on a categorical scale and analyzed.
RESULTS: We received 658 responses (32.9%) during a 12-week period. Maxillary Hawley retainers (58.2%) and mandibular fixed lingual retainers (40.2%) were the most commonly used. Most orthodontists prescribed less than 9 months of full-time wear of removable retainers and thereafter advised part-time, but lifetime wear. Most orthodontists (75.9%) did not instruct patients to have the fixed lingual retainers removed at a specific time. More orthodontists who prescribed Hawley retainers recommended longer full-time wear compared with clear thermoplastic retainers. The timing of scheduled retention appointments varied among clinicians and depended on the number of years in practice, the volume of patients debonded, and the type of prescribed retainer. The only regional difference associated with retainer design was the Northeast region, where mandibular fixed lingual retainers were used less frequently. Female orthodontists did not use mandibular fixed lingual retainers as often as their male counterparts.
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary Hawley and mandibular fixed lingual retainers are most commonly used. This study is the first to describe retention protocols and the scheduling of retention appointments in the United States.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20152670     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  23 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.  Level of satisfaction in the use of the wraparound Hawley and thermoplastic maxillary retainers.

Authors:  Adenilson Silva Chagas; Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas; Rodrigo Hermont Cançado; Fabricio Pinelli Valarelli; Luiz Filiphe Gonçalves Canuto; Renata Cristina Gobbi de Oliveira; Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de Oliveira
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Post-treatment changes in permanent retention.

Authors:  Michael Wolf; U Schulte; K Küpper; C Bourauel; L Keilig; S N Papageorgiou; C Dirk; C Kirschneck; N Daratsianos; A Jäger
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 1.938

6.  Assessment of Factors Affecting Adolescent Patients' Compliance with Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers.

Authors:  Behnam Mirzakouchaki; Sajjad Shirazi; Reza Sharghi; Samaneh Shirazi
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-06-01

7.  Survey on Retention Protocols Among Turkish Orthodontists.

Authors:  Aylin Paşaoğlu; Işıl Aras; Ali Mert; Aynur Aras
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2016-09-01

8.  Short-term postorthodontic changes in the absence of retention.

Authors:  Nadia Lyotard; Mark Hans; Suchitra Nelson; Manish Valiathan
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 9.  What causes failure of fixed orthodontic retention? - systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.

Authors:  Maciej Jedliński; Katarzyna Grocholewicz; Marta Mazur; Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 2.151

10.  Factors affecting orthodontists' management of the retention phase.

Authors:  Kevin Bibona; Bhavna Shroff; Al M Best; Steven J Lindauer
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.