Maurice J Meade1, Declan Millett. 1. M. J. Meade, Cork University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) among specialist orthodontists. DESIGN: Postal/electronic (e-) questionnaire. SETTING: Republic of Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the Dental Council of Ireland Specialist Register of Orthodontists and/or Orthodontic Society of Ireland. METHODS: A pilot-tested questionnaire was distributed to 123 eligible specialist orthodontists. Questions addressed respondent demographics, preferred retainer choice in the maxillary and mandibular arches, prescribed wear protocols, VFR characteristics and factors influencing retainer choice. Statistical analyses were performed using PASW® version 18. RESULTS: The response rate was 82%. VFRs were the most commonly chosen retainer, prescribed by 53% of respondents in the maxilla and 33% in the mandible. Full-time followed by part-time wear of removable retainers (RRs) was the wear protocol favoured by the majority (70-76%). Full occlusal coverage was the VFR design favoured by 93%. VFR sheet thicknesses of 1.0 mm (68%) and 0.75 mm (16%) were most commonly prescribed. Seventeen per cent were aware that their patients used their VFRs as a receptacle for dental bleaching gel. Life-time wear of retainers was advised by 67-78%. The operator factor that most influenced retainer choice was the pre-treatment situation (88%). CONCLUSIONS: VFRs were the most common retainer choice in the maxilla and mandible with full-time wear followed by part-time wear of RRs favoured by most. Full occlusal coverage with a thickness of 1.0 mm was the VFR design prescribed by the majority. More than one in six specialist orthodontists were aware that their patients used their VFRs as a receptacle for dental bleaching gel.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) among specialist orthodontists. DESIGN: Postal/electronic (e-) questionnaire. SETTING: Republic of Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the Dental Council of Ireland Specialist Register of Orthodontists and/or Orthodontic Society of Ireland. METHODS: A pilot-tested questionnaire was distributed to 123 eligible specialist orthodontists. Questions addressed respondent demographics, preferred retainer choice in the maxillary and mandibular arches, prescribed wear protocols, VFR characteristics and factors influencing retainer choice. Statistical analyses were performed using PASW® version 18. RESULTS: The response rate was 82%. VFRs were the most commonly chosen retainer, prescribed by 53% of respondents in the maxilla and 33% in the mandible. Full-time followed by part-time wear of removable retainers (RRs) was the wear protocol favoured by the majority (70-76%). Full occlusal coverage was the VFR design favoured by 93%. VFR sheet thicknesses of 1.0 mm (68%) and 0.75 mm (16%) were most commonly prescribed. Seventeen per cent were aware that their patients used their VFRs as a receptacle for dental bleaching gel. Life-time wear of retainers was advised by 67-78%. The operator factor that most influenced retainer choice was the pre-treatment situation (88%). CONCLUSIONS: VFRs were the most common retainer choice in the maxilla and mandible with full-time wear followed by part-time wear of RRs favoured by most. Full occlusal coverage with a thickness of 1.0 mm was the VFR design prescribed by the majority. More than one in six specialist orthodontists were aware that their patients used their VFRs as a receptacle for dental bleaching gel.
Authors: Maciej Jedliński; Katarzyna Grocholewicz; Marta Mazur; Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 2.151
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
Authors: Thikriat S Al-Jewair; Mohammad A Hamidaddin; Hamdan M Alotaibi; Nasser D Alqahtani; Sahar F Albarakati; Eman A Alkofide; Khalid A Al-Moammar Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.484