Retention efficacy and patient experience with customized clear retainer and wrap-around circumferential retainer among non-extraction orthodontic patients: A 12-month follow-up cohort study

IF 2.4 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1111/ocr.12837

Jun-Hyeong Bae, Utkarsh Mangal, Jae-Hun Yu, Jung-Yul Cha, Hyung-Seog Yu, Kee-Joon Lee, Sung-Hwan Choi

{"title":"Retention efficacy and patient experience with customized clear retainer and wrap-around circumferential retainer among non-extraction orthodontic patients: A 12-month follow-up cohort study","authors":"Jun-Hyeong Bae, Utkarsh Mangal, Jae-Hun Yu, Jung-Yul Cha, Hyung-Seog Yu, Kee-Joon Lee, Sung-Hwan Choi","doi":"10.1111/ocr.12837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this study was to evaluate retention efficacy by assessing retention stability and patient perspectives according to type of circumferential retainer: the wrap-around circumferential retainer (WCR) and customized clear retainer (CCR).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This cohort follow-up study involved 52 patients aged 18–62 who underwent fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment without extractions or orthognathic surgery. Following screening consenting participants were divided into WCR and CCR groups. All participants before follow-up received fixed retainers for the upper and lower anteriors and respective removable retainers within 2 weeks post-debond. Intraoral scans and lateral cephalograms were taken immediately after debonding (T0) and again 12 months later. Dentoalveolar changes in several measurements were compared to evaluate retention efficacy. Surveys were conducted at 1 month (T1) and 12 months (T2) post-debonding to assess changes in patient experiences. Outcome assessments were blinded. Paired <i>T</i>-tests and independent <i>T</i>-tests were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of dentoalveolar measurements, respectively. Survey responses were analysed using the Pearson Chi-Square test.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The final assessment included 32 participants. Model analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups, except for maxillary intermolar width (<i>p</i> = .033). In the WCR group, the cephalometric analysis indicated a significant increase in the incisor mandibular plane angle (<i>p</i> = .002) and a decrease in the interincisal angle (<i>p</i> = .014), while changes in the CCR group were statistically non-significant. Patient attitude evaluation showed similar trends for wear time and overall satisfaction. However, a higher percentage of respondents in the WCR group reported irritation when wearing the retainers (<i>p</i> = .037) at T1 and discomfort related to speech (<i>p</i> = .038) at T2.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>CCR showed better retention efficacy in terms of lower incisor inclination. Patients experienced relatively less irritation and speech discomfort with CCRs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":19652,"journal":{"name":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","volume":"27 6","pages":"928-937"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ocr.12837","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ocr.12837","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate retention efficacy by assessing retention stability and patient perspectives according to type of circumferential retainer: the wrap-around circumferential retainer (WCR) and customized clear retainer (CCR).

Materials and Methods

This cohort follow-up study involved 52 patients aged 18–62 who underwent fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment without extractions or orthognathic surgery. Following screening consenting participants were divided into WCR and CCR groups. All participants before follow-up received fixed retainers for the upper and lower anteriors and respective removable retainers within 2 weeks post-debond. Intraoral scans and lateral cephalograms were taken immediately after debonding (T0) and again 12 months later. Dentoalveolar changes in several measurements were compared to evaluate retention efficacy. Surveys were conducted at 1 month (T1) and 12 months (T2) post-debonding to assess changes in patient experiences. Outcome assessments were blinded. Paired T-tests and independent T-tests were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of dentoalveolar measurements, respectively. Survey responses were analysed using the Pearson Chi-Square test.

Results

The final assessment included 32 participants. Model analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups, except for maxillary intermolar width (p = .033). In the WCR group, the cephalometric analysis indicated a significant increase in the incisor mandibular plane angle (p = .002) and a decrease in the interincisal angle (p = .014), while changes in the CCR group were statistically non-significant. Patient attitude evaluation showed similar trends for wear time and overall satisfaction. However, a higher percentage of respondents in the WCR group reported irritation when wearing the retainers (p = .037) at T1 and discomfort related to speech (p = .038) at T2.

Conclusions

CCR showed better retention efficacy in terms of lower incisor inclination. Patients experienced relatively less irritation and speech discomfort with CCRs.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

非拔牙期正畸患者使用定制透明保持器和环绕型保持器的保持效果和患者体验：为期 12 个月的随访队列研究。

研究目的本研究的目的是通过评估保持器的稳定性和患者的观点来评价保持器的有效性，具体取决于周界保持器的类型：环绕型周界保持器（WCR）和定制透明保持器（CCR）：这项队列随访研究涉及 52 名年龄在 18-62 岁之间、接受过固定矫治器正畸治疗且未进行拔牙或正颌手术的患者。经筛选同意后，参与者被分为 WCR 组和 CCR 组。所有参与者在复诊前都接受了上下前牙固定保持器，并在粘接后两周内分别接受了可摘保持器。脱钩后（T0）立即进行口内扫描和侧位头影，12个月后再次进行口内扫描和侧位头影。通过比较牙槽骨在多个测量值上的变化来评估固位效果。在脱粘后 1 个月（T1）和 12 个月（T2）进行调查，以评估患者体验的变化。结果评估均为盲法。牙槽骨测量的组内比较和组间比较分别采用配对 T 检验和独立 T 检验。调查反馈采用皮尔逊秩和检验进行分析：最终评估包括 32 名参与者。模型分析显示，除上颌磨牙间宽度（p = .033）外，各组间无明显差异。在 WCR 组中，头颅测量分析表明切牙下颌平面角度显著增大（p = .002），颊间隙角度显著减小（p = .014），而 CCR 组的变化在统计学上不显著。患者态度评估显示，佩戴时间和总体满意度的变化趋势相似。然而，WCR 组中有更高比例的受访者在 T1 阶段表示佩戴保持器时有刺激感（p = .037），在 T2 阶段表示与言语相关的不适感（p = .038）：结论：就下切牙倾斜度而言，CCR 显示出更好的保持效果。结论：就下切牙倾斜度而言，CCR 表现出更好的固位效果，患者在使用 CCR 时感受到的刺激和言语不适相对较少。

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

Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

3.20%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research - Genes, Growth and Development is published to serve its readers as an international forum for the presentation and critical discussion of issues pertinent to the advancement of the specialty of orthodontics and the evidence-based knowledge of craniofacial growth and development. This forum is based on scientifically supported information, but also includes minority and conflicting opinions. The objective of the journal is to facilitate effective communication between the research community and practicing clinicians. Original papers of high scientific quality that report the findings of clinical trials, clinical epidemiology, and novel therapeutic or diagnostic approaches are appropriate submissions. Similarly, we welcome papers in genetics, developmental biology, syndromology, surgery, speech and hearing, and other biomedical disciplines related to clinical orthodontics and normal and abnormal craniofacial growth and development. In addition to original and basic research, the journal publishes concise reviews, case reports of substantial value, invited essays, letters, and announcements. The journal is published quarterly. The review of submitted papers will be coordinated by the editor and members of the editorial board. It is policy to review manuscripts within 3 to 4 weeks of receipt and to publish within 3 to 6 months of acceptance.