Blanket or tailored prescription of retainers in orthodontics: a questionnaire-based study

D. Al-Moghrabi, A. Alkadhimi, Sarah Abu Arqub, Padhraig S. Fleming
{"title":"Blanket or tailored prescription of retainers in orthodontics: a questionnaire-based study","authors":"D. Al-Moghrabi, A. Alkadhimi, Sarah Abu Arqub, Padhraig S. Fleming","doi":"10.2319/060923-400.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n To explore retainer protocols and how they are influenced by orthodontic presentation and the nature of occlusal correction.\n \n \n \n A prepiloted 45-item online questionnaire targeting orthodontists was developed. The questionnaire covered clinical preferences in terms of retainer type, fabrication, and follow-up during retention; the clinical indications for adjunctive surgical procedures; and the use of active designs to mitigate relapse in specific malocclusions.\n \n \n \n A total of 206 responses were obtained. The majority of the respondents prescribed maxillary removable and mandibular fixed retainers, with almost half (49.1%) reviewing patients for more than 1 year primarily in person (95.1%). The majority prescribed vacuum-formed (69.6%) 1-mm-thick (44.3%) retainers. Only 37.3% were aware of the type of material used, with polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolymer, followed by polypropylene, being the most common. Hawley retainers were preferred following nonsurgical maxillary expansion and with suboptimal interdigitation. A preference for clear retainers and/or fixed retainers was found in open-bite cases and deep-bite cases. Supracrestal fiberotomy was prescribed commonly (61.1%) for rotations greater than 90°. No retainer was rarely prescribed except after the correction of an anterior crossbite.\n \n \n \n Blanket prescription of orthodontic retention is common, with limited awareness of clear plastic retainer materials. Future trials evaluating the effectiveness of approaches for retainer prescription based on the presenting malocclusion would be timely.\n","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/060923-400.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To explore retainer protocols and how they are influenced by orthodontic presentation and the nature of occlusal correction. A prepiloted 45-item online questionnaire targeting orthodontists was developed. The questionnaire covered clinical preferences in terms of retainer type, fabrication, and follow-up during retention; the clinical indications for adjunctive surgical procedures; and the use of active designs to mitigate relapse in specific malocclusions. A total of 206 responses were obtained. The majority of the respondents prescribed maxillary removable and mandibular fixed retainers, with almost half (49.1%) reviewing patients for more than 1 year primarily in person (95.1%). The majority prescribed vacuum-formed (69.6%) 1-mm-thick (44.3%) retainers. Only 37.3% were aware of the type of material used, with polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolymer, followed by polypropylene, being the most common. Hawley retainers were preferred following nonsurgical maxillary expansion and with suboptimal interdigitation. A preference for clear retainers and/or fixed retainers was found in open-bite cases and deep-bite cases. Supracrestal fiberotomy was prescribed commonly (61.1%) for rotations greater than 90°. No retainer was rarely prescribed except after the correction of an anterior crossbite. Blanket prescription of orthodontic retention is common, with limited awareness of clear plastic retainer materials. Future trials evaluating the effectiveness of approaches for retainer prescription based on the presenting malocclusion would be timely.
牙科正畸中一刀切还是量身定制保持器处方:一项基于问卷的研究
探究保持器的使用方法,以及它们如何受到正畸表现和咬合矫正性质的影响。 针对正畸医生预先设计了一份包含 45 个项目的在线问卷。该问卷涵盖了保持器类型、制作和保持期间随访方面的临床偏好;辅助外科手术的临床适应症;以及使用主动设计来减少特定错颌畸形的复发。 共收到 206 份回复。大多数受访者开具了上颌可摘保持器和下颌固定保持器,其中近一半(49.1%)的受访者主要是亲自对患者进行为期一年以上的复查(95.1%)。大多数人开具的是真空成形(69.6%)和 1 毫米厚(44.3%)保持器。只有37.3%的人知道所用材料的类型,其中最常见的是聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇共聚物,其次是聚丙烯。霍利保持器是非手术上颌扩弓后和咬合关系不理想时的首选。开放性咬合和深咬合病例更倾向于使用透明保持器和/或固定保持器。对于旋转超过90°的病例,通常(61.1%)采用上嵴纤维切断术。除了矫正前方交叉咬合后,很少使用保持器。 一刀切地开具正畸保持器处方很常见,而对透明塑料保持器材料的认识却很有限。今后根据错合畸形情况对保持器处方方法的有效性进行评估的试验将非常及时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信