In vitro Evaluation of Various Retention Protocols in Sustaining Treatment Outcomes Following Orthodontic Therapy.

IF 0.7 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_407_24
Asha A Hegde, P M Roveena, Rashme Rashme, Ushma Hardik Prajapati, Rajashekar Reddy Vundela, Avantika Vijaysingh Jadhav
{"title":"<i>In vitro</i> Evaluation of Various Retention Protocols in Sustaining Treatment Outcomes Following Orthodontic Therapy.","authors":"Asha A Hegde, P M Roveena, Rashme Rashme, Ushma Hardik Prajapati, Rajashekar Reddy Vundela, Avantika Vijaysingh Jadhav","doi":"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_407_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Orthodontic therapy aims at achieving stable treatment outcomes by ensuring retention of corrected tooth positions. Various retention protocols have been proposed, but their efficacy in sustaining treatment outcomes remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This <i>in vitro</i> study evaluated the effectiveness of different retention protocols in maintaining treatment outcomes following orthodontic therapy. Thirty extracted human premolars were subjected to simulated orthodontic movement and then divided into three groups: group A-Essix retainer, group B-Hawley retainer, and group C-bonded retainer. Retention efficacy was assessed through measurements of tooth movement over a period of 6 months using a digital caliper.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean amount of mesial movement observed in group A was 0.5 mm (SD ± 0.1), in group B was 0.7 mm (SD ± 0.2), and in group C was 0.3 mm (SD ± 0.1). Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in retention efficacy among the three groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The bonded retainer demonstrated superior efficacy in sustaining treatment outcomes by minimizing post-orthodontic tooth movement compared to Essix and Hawley retainers. Thus, the bonded retainer may be considered a preferable option for retention following orthodontic therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":94339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","volume":"16 Suppl 3","pages":"S2703-S2705"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11426569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_407_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Orthodontic therapy aims at achieving stable treatment outcomes by ensuring retention of corrected tooth positions. Various retention protocols have been proposed, but their efficacy in sustaining treatment outcomes remains unclear.

Materials and methods: This in vitro study evaluated the effectiveness of different retention protocols in maintaining treatment outcomes following orthodontic therapy. Thirty extracted human premolars were subjected to simulated orthodontic movement and then divided into three groups: group A-Essix retainer, group B-Hawley retainer, and group C-bonded retainer. Retention efficacy was assessed through measurements of tooth movement over a period of 6 months using a digital caliper.

Results: The mean amount of mesial movement observed in group A was 0.5 mm (SD ± 0.1), in group B was 0.7 mm (SD ± 0.2), and in group C was 0.3 mm (SD ± 0.1). Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in retention efficacy among the three groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The bonded retainer demonstrated superior efficacy in sustaining treatment outcomes by minimizing post-orthodontic tooth movement compared to Essix and Hawley retainers. Thus, the bonded retainer may be considered a preferable option for retention following orthodontic therapy.

体外评估各种保持力方案在维持正畸治疗后的疗效方面的作用。
背景:正畸治疗的目的是通过确保保持已矫正的牙齿位置来实现稳定的治疗效果。目前已提出了多种保持方案,但它们在维持治疗效果方面的功效仍不明确:这项体外研究评估了不同的固位方案在保持正畸治疗后的治疗效果方面的有效性。对 30 颗拔出的人类前臼齿进行模拟正畸移动,然后将其分为三组:A 组-Essix 保持器、B 组-Hawley 保持器和 C 组-粘结保持器。通过使用数字卡尺测量6个月内的牙齿移动情况来评估保持器的效果:结果:A组观察到的平均中线移动量为0.5毫米(SD ± 0.1),B组为0.7毫米(SD ± 0.2),C组为0.3毫米(SD ± 0.1)。统计分析表明,三组的固位效果存在明显差异(P < 0.05):结论:与Essix和Hawley保持器相比,粘结保持器通过减少正畸后的牙齿移动,在维持治疗效果方面表现出了卓越的功效。因此,粘结保持器可被视为正畸治疗后保持牙齿的首选。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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