Literature DB >> 33447467

Approaches of Turkish Dentists in Cases of Orthodontic Lingual Retainer Failures.

Abdurahman Küçükönder1, Ömer Hatipoğlu2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the approaches of Turkish dentists in cases of orthodontic lingual retainer failures.
METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was used to quantify dentists' approaches to lingual retainer failures. The first part of the study investigated the demographic characteristics. In the second part, dentists' approaches to cases of failed retainers were assessed. The third part had questions related to the type of retainers bonded solely to the canines or to all the 6 anterior teeth. Descriptive statistics were done with Pearson's χ2 test, and Mann-Whitney U test was used.
RESULTS: A total of 320 Turkish dentists participated in the survey. Experienced and public dentists preferred to advise the patients whose retainers had failed to contact their orthodontist more frequently (p<0.05). Regarding their approach to patients who requested removal of the bonded retainer, inexperienced dentists more frequently preferred to refer the patients to an orthodontist (p<0.05). With regard to factors affecting the choice to remove a bonded retainer, the most and the least importance were attributed to the orthodontist's opinion and the patient's demand, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Turkish dentists prefer referring their patients to orthodontists rather than performing procedures in cases of failure associated with bonded retainers. Different demographic characteristics seem to have an impact on these approaches. © Copyright 2020 by Turkish Orthodontic Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Orthodontic retainer; retention; survey

Year:  2020        PMID: 33447467      PMCID: PMC7771290          DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Orthod        ISSN: 2148-9505


  21 in total

1.  A comprehensive survey of retention procedures in Australia and New Zealand.

Authors:  Pamela M Wong; Terry J Freer
Journal:  Aust Orthod J       Date:  2004-11

2.  Long-term clinical failure rate of molar tubes bonded with a self-etching primer.

Authors:  Nikolaos Pandis; Lars Christensen; Theodore Eliades
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Orthodontic retention patterns in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Parmjit Singh; Sarri Grammati; Robert Kirschen
Journal:  J Orthod       Date:  2009-06

4.  The association of orthodontic treatment and fixed retainers with gingival health.

Authors:  Liran Levin; Gili R Samorodnitzky-Naveh; Eli E Machtei
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 6.993

5.  Rationale for retention following orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  M Blake; M T Garvey
Journal:  J Can Dent Assoc       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.316

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

Authors:  Manish Valiathan; Eric Hughes
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 7.  Efficacy of homecare regimens for mechanical plaque removal in managing gingivitis a meta review.

Authors:  Fridus A Van der Weijden; Dagmar E Slot
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 8.728

8.  Comparison of incisor mobility after insertion of canine-to-canine lingual retainers bonded to two or to six teeth. A clinical study.

Authors:  N Watted; M Wieber; T Teuscher; N Schmitz
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.938

Review 9.  Orthodontic bonded retainers.

Authors:  Jonathan Butler; Paul Dowling
Journal:  J Ir Dent Assoc       Date:  2005

10.  Impact of orthodontic retainers on periodontal health status assessed by biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid.

Authors:  Wellington J Rody; Hengameh Akhlaghi; Sercan Akyalcin; William A Wiltshire; Manjula Wijegunasinghe; Getulio Nogueira Filho
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-06-09       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.