Comparison of treatment stability among maxillary round multi-strand wire, chairside rectangular chain and vacuum formed retainers: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 3.2
Khatib N Al-Hudaid, Kazem S Al-Nimri, Samer M Al-Qaqaa
{"title":"Comparison of treatment stability among maxillary round multi-strand wire, chairside rectangular chain and vacuum formed retainers: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Khatib N Al-Hudaid, Kazem S Al-Nimri, Samer M Al-Qaqaa","doi":"10.2319/022025-150.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effect of three different maxillary retainers: round multi-strand stainless steel (SS), rectangular white gold-plated SS, and vacuum-formed (VF) retainers on treatment stability, retainer integrity, and gingival health over 12 months.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Seventy subjects who finished fixed orthodontic treatment and required orthodontic retainers in the upper arch were randomly divided into three groups. The first group (mean age: 21.0 years) received bonded three multi-strand round (0.0175-inch) SS retainer, the second group (mean age: 20.4 years) received bonded rectangular (0.038 × 0.016-inch) white gold-plated SS retainer, the third group (mean age: 20.0 years) received removable VF retainer. Bonded retainers were extended from lateral to lateral incisor while VF retainer was extended to the most distal molar. After 1 year, all subjects were recalled. The primary outcome was to assess relapse in upper labial segment alignment. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) of the upper labial segment teeth and retainer failure rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistical difference in the average irregularity index (IRI), PI, and GI among the three groups (P = .667, P = .781, P = .487, respectively). Retainer failure rate was significantly higher in Group III (60.9%) compared to Group I (20.8%) and Group II (34.8%, P = .017).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After 1 year, anterior tooth alignment stability and gingival health parameters were not different between bonded and VF retainers. However, the VF retainer exhibited a higher failure rate compared to bonded retainers.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/022025-150.1","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

Objectives: To compare the effect of three different maxillary retainers: round multi-strand stainless steel (SS), rectangular white gold-plated SS, and vacuum-formed (VF) retainers on treatment stability, retainer integrity, and gingival health over 12 months.

Materials and methods: Seventy subjects who finished fixed orthodontic treatment and required orthodontic retainers in the upper arch were randomly divided into three groups. The first group (mean age: 21.0 years) received bonded three multi-strand round (0.0175-inch) SS retainer, the second group (mean age: 20.4 years) received bonded rectangular (0.038 × 0.016-inch) white gold-plated SS retainer, the third group (mean age: 20.0 years) received removable VF retainer. Bonded retainers were extended from lateral to lateral incisor while VF retainer was extended to the most distal molar. After 1 year, all subjects were recalled. The primary outcome was to assess relapse in upper labial segment alignment. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) of the upper labial segment teeth and retainer failure rate.

Results: There was no statistical difference in the average irregularity index (IRI), PI, and GI among the three groups (P = .667, P = .781, P = .487, respectively). Retainer failure rate was significantly higher in Group III (60.9%) compared to Group I (20.8%) and Group II (34.8%, P = .017).

Conclusions: After 1 year, anterior tooth alignment stability and gingival health parameters were not different between bonded and VF retainers. However, the VF retainer exhibited a higher failure rate compared to bonded retainers.

上颌圆形多股铁丝、椅边矩形链和真空成形固位器治疗稳定性的比较:随机临床试验。
目的:比较三种不同的上颌固位体:圆形多链不锈钢(SS)、矩形白色镀金不锈钢(SS)和真空成形(VF)固位体对治疗稳定性、固位体完整性和牙龈健康的影响。材料与方法:将70例完成固定正畸治疗并需要在上弓固定固位的患者随机分为3组。第一组(平均年龄:21.0岁)采用粘接三根多链圆形(0.0175英寸)SS固位器,第二组(平均年龄:20.4岁)采用粘接矩形(0.038 × 0.016英寸)白色镀金SS固位器,第三组(平均年龄:20.0岁)采用可拆卸式VF固位器。粘接固位器从侧切牙延伸至侧切牙,VF固位器延伸至最远端磨牙。1年后,所有受试者被召回。主要结果是评估上唇段对齐的复发率。次要观察指标为上唇段牙菌斑指数(PI)、牙龈指数(GI)及固位器失效率。结果:三组患者平均不规则指数(IRI)、PI、GI比较,差异均无统计学意义(P = 0.667、P = 0.781、P = 0.487)。III组固位体失效率(60.9%)明显高于I组(20.8%)和II组(34.8%,P = 0.017)。结论:粘接固位器与VF固位器1年后前牙排列稳定性和牙龈健康参数无显著差异。然而,与粘接固位体相比,VF固位体的故障率更高。
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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信