{"title":"下颌固定保持器的存活率:管式保持器与传统多股保持器的比较:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。","authors":"Kyungmin Clara Lee, Seung-Weon Lim, Jin-Hyoung Cho, Heesoo Oh, Hyeon-Shik Hwang","doi":"10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were to evaluate the survival rate of a tube-type mandibular fixed retainer and compare it to conventional multistrand retainers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.</p>","PeriodicalId":54776,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers: comparison of a tube-type retainer and conventional multistrand retainers : A prospective randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Kyungmin Clara Lee, Seung-Weon Lim, Jin-Hyoung Cho, Heesoo Oh, Hyeon-Shik Hwang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were to evaluate the survival rate of a tube-type mandibular fixed retainer and compare it to conventional multistrand retainers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers: comparison of a tube-type retainer and conventional multistrand retainers : A prospective randomized clinical trial.
Objective: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the survival rate of a tube-type mandibular fixed retainer and compare it to conventional multistrand retainers.
Materials and methods: In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.
Results: Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).
Conclusion: The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics provides orthodontists and dentists who are also actively interested in orthodontics, whether in university clinics or private practice, with highly authoritative and up-to-date information based on experimental and clinical research. The journal is one of the leading publications for the promulgation of the results of original work both in the areas of scientific and clinical orthodontics and related areas. All articles undergo peer review before publication. The German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO) also publishes in the journal important communications, statements and announcements.