Literature DB >> 21771797

Survival time comparison between Hawley and clear overlay retainers: a randomized trial.

J Sun1, Y C Yu, M Y Liu, L Chen, H W Li, L Zhang, Y Zhou, D Ao, R Tao, W L Lai.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to compare the survival time of the Hawley retainer (HR) and the clear overlay retainer (COR) over one-year follow-up and to analyze risk factors contributing to their breakage. In this randomized, controlled clinical trial, we assigned 120 adolescent patients to receive either the HR or the COR. All specific data on breakage dates, the reasons for breakage, and the broken parts of the retainers were recorded. A survival analysis was used to describe retainer survival over time. No significant differences were observed in survival times between the 2 groups for either the maxillary retainer (p = 0.254) or the mandibular retainer (p = 0.188). Both retainers tended to fracture, but the fracture locations were different. The findings indicate that clinicians should avoid increasing buccal root torque and reinforce the retainer base plates. Breakage rates may not influence the choice of retainer (Trial Registration number is ChiCTR-TRC-00000055).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21771797     DOI: 10.1177/0022034511415274

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  8 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.  A discerning approach to simple aesthetic orthodontics.

Authors:  J H Noar; S Sharma; D Roberts-Harry; T Qureshi
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 1.626

3.  Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study.

Authors:  Moshkelgosha V; Shomali M; Momeni M
Journal:  J Dent Biomater       Date:  2016-06

Review 4.  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

5.  A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Asma Ashari; Nik Mukhriz Nik Mustapha; Jonathan Jun Xian Yuen; Zhi Kuan Saw; May Nak Lau; Lew Xian; Alizae Marny Fadzlin Syed Mohamed; Rohaya Megat Abdul Wahab; Chiew Kit Yeoh; Malathi Deva Tata; Sindhu Sinnasamy
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 3.247

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.  A new type of clear orthodontic retainer incorporating multi-layer hybrid materials.

Authors:  Hyo-Won Ahn; Kyung A Kim; Seong-Hun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 8.  The effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Dalya Al-Moghrabi; Nikolaos Pandis; Padhraig S Fleming
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 2.750

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.