Comparison between round multi-strand wire and rectangular wire bonded retainers: a randomized clinical trial.

Q2 Medicine
Emad F Al-Maaitah, Sawsan Alomari, Kazem Al-Nimri
{"title":"Comparison between round multi-strand wire and rectangular wire bonded retainers: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Emad F Al-Maaitah,&nbsp;Sawsan Alomari,&nbsp;Kazem Al-Nimri","doi":"10.1590/2177-6709.28.2.e2321101.oar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary objective was to compare round multi-strand wire and Ortho-Flex-Tech™ rectangular wire retainers in terms of gingival health. The secondary objectives were to assess plaque/calculus accumulation, and to determine the effectiveness of these retainers in maintaining tooth alignment and their failure rate.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This single-center study was a two-arm parallel randomized clinical trial and was conducted at the Orthodontic clinics in Dental Teaching Center/Jordan University of Science and Technology. Sixty patients, with bonded retention for the mandibular anterior segment after fixed orthodontic treatment, were randomly selected. The sample comprised Caucasian patients with mild to moderate pretreatment crowding in the mandibular anterior region, Class I relationship, treated without extraction of mandibular anterior tooth. In addition, only patients presenting normal overjet and overbite after treatment were included.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>One group received round multi-strand wire retainer (30 patients, average age: 19.7 ± 3.8 years), while the other group received Ortho-Flex-Tech™ retainer (30 patients; average age: 19.3 ± 3.2 years). In both groups, the retainers were bonded to all mandibular anterior teeth from canine to canine. All patients were recalled one year after bracket debonding. Randomization sequence was created using Excel 2010, with a 1:1 allocation, using random block size 4. The allocation sequence was concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes. Only participants were blinded to the type of bonded retainer used. The primary outcome was to compare the gingival condition between the two groups. The secondary outcomes were to assess plaque/calculus indices, irregularity index of the mandibular anterior teeth and retainers' failure rate. Comparisons were conducted using Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square test. Statistical significance was predetermined at the p≤ 0.05 level for all tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Complete data were collected for 46 patients (round multi-strand wire retainer group, n=24 patients; rectangular Ortho-Flex-Tech™ retainer group, n=22 patients). No significant differences were found in the gingival health parameters between the two groups (p>0.05). Ortho-Flex-Tech™ retainers maintained the alignment of mandibular anterior teeth more than multi-strand retainer (p<0.05). No significant difference was found in the failure rate between the two groups (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Gingival health parameters and failure rate were not different in both groups. However, Ortho-Flex-Tech™ retainers were more efficient to retain the mandibular incisors than the multi-strand retainers; nevertheless, the difference was not clinically significant.</p>","PeriodicalId":38720,"journal":{"name":"Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"28 2","pages":"e2321101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10202450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.28.2.e2321101.oar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The primary objective was to compare round multi-strand wire and Ortho-Flex-Tech™ rectangular wire retainers in terms of gingival health. The secondary objectives were to assess plaque/calculus accumulation, and to determine the effectiveness of these retainers in maintaining tooth alignment and their failure rate.

Material and methods: This single-center study was a two-arm parallel randomized clinical trial and was conducted at the Orthodontic clinics in Dental Teaching Center/Jordan University of Science and Technology. Sixty patients, with bonded retention for the mandibular anterior segment after fixed orthodontic treatment, were randomly selected. The sample comprised Caucasian patients with mild to moderate pretreatment crowding in the mandibular anterior region, Class I relationship, treated without extraction of mandibular anterior tooth. In addition, only patients presenting normal overjet and overbite after treatment were included.

Intervention: One group received round multi-strand wire retainer (30 patients, average age: 19.7 ± 3.8 years), while the other group received Ortho-Flex-Tech™ retainer (30 patients; average age: 19.3 ± 3.2 years). In both groups, the retainers were bonded to all mandibular anterior teeth from canine to canine. All patients were recalled one year after bracket debonding. Randomization sequence was created using Excel 2010, with a 1:1 allocation, using random block size 4. The allocation sequence was concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes. Only participants were blinded to the type of bonded retainer used. The primary outcome was to compare the gingival condition between the two groups. The secondary outcomes were to assess plaque/calculus indices, irregularity index of the mandibular anterior teeth and retainers' failure rate. Comparisons were conducted using Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square test. Statistical significance was predetermined at the p≤ 0.05 level for all tests.

Results: Complete data were collected for 46 patients (round multi-strand wire retainer group, n=24 patients; rectangular Ortho-Flex-Tech™ retainer group, n=22 patients). No significant differences were found in the gingival health parameters between the two groups (p>0.05). Ortho-Flex-Tech™ retainers maintained the alignment of mandibular anterior teeth more than multi-strand retainer (p<0.05). No significant difference was found in the failure rate between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusions: Gingival health parameters and failure rate were not different in both groups. However, Ortho-Flex-Tech™ retainers were more efficient to retain the mandibular incisors than the multi-strand retainers; nevertheless, the difference was not clinically significant.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

圆形多股金属丝与矩形金属丝结合固位器的比较:一项随机临床试验。
目的:主要目的是比较圆形多股金属丝和Ortho-Flex-Tech™矩形金属丝固位器对牙龈健康的影响。次要目的是评估牙菌斑/牙石积累情况,并确定这些固位器在维持牙齿排列方面的有效性及其故障率。材料与方法:本研究为单中心平行随机临床试验,在约旦科技大学牙科教学中心正畸门诊进行。随机选择固定正畸治疗后下颌前段粘接固位患者60例。样本包括轻度至中度预处理在下颌前区拥挤的白人患者,I类关系,治疗不拔除下颌前牙。此外,仅包括治疗后出现正常覆盖和覆盖咬合的患者。干预:一组采用圆形多股金属丝固定器(30例,平均年龄19.7±3.8岁),另一组采用Ortho-Flex-Tech™固定器(30例;平均年龄:19.3±3.2岁)。在两组中,固位体从犬齿到犬齿都粘接在所有的下颌前牙上。所有患者在托架脱粘一年后被召回。使用Excel 2010创建随机化序列,以1:1分配,使用随机块大小为4。分配顺序隐藏在按顺序编号、不透明和密封的信封中。只有参与者不知道所使用的粘接固位器的类型。主要结果是比较两组患者的牙龈状况。次要观察指标为牙菌斑/牙石指数、下颌前牙不规则指数及固位器失效率。比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验或卡方检验。在p≤0.05水平上预先确定所有检验的统计学显著性。结果:收集完整资料46例(圆形多股固定器组,n=24例;矩形Ortho-Flex-Tech™固位器组(n=22例)。两组牙龈健康指标比较,差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。orthoo - flex - tech™固位器比多链固位器更能维持下颌前牙的排列(p0.05)。结论:两组患者牙龈健康指标及失败率无显著差异。然而,Ortho-Flex-Tech™固位器比多链固位器更有效地固位下颌骨门牙;然而,差异无临床意义。
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
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: The Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics publishes scientific research articles, significant reviews, clinical and technical case reports, brief communications, and other materials related to Orthodontics and Facial Orthopedics.
×
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