粘接固位体与真空成形固位体效率的比较——一项随机临床试验

Q4 Medicine
Md Asraqur Rahman Raihan, M. Sajedeen, M. Hussain, Tahsina Ahmed
{"title":"粘接固位体与真空成形固位体效率的比较——一项随机临床试验","authors":"Md Asraqur Rahman Raihan, M. Sajedeen, M. Hussain, Tahsina Ahmed","doi":"10.3329/bmrcb.v48i2.62295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Major goal of orthodontic treatment is long term stability of the corrected teeth after orthodontic treatment. After orthodontic treatment there is always chance of relapse. To prevent relapse several appliances are available as a retention device such as bonded fixed retainers, vacuum formed retainers, removable Hawley retainer, Begg’s retainer. Now a days vacuum formed retainer has become more acceptable due to low cost, esthetic and easy fabrication.\nObjective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical success of bonded retainers with vacuumformed retainers, as far as keeping up the consequences of orthodontic treatment in the lower arch as long as a year after debond.\nMethods: This was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) carried out at the department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka. In the study a total of 40 subjects who had fulfilled the selection criteria were randomly allocated to one of two groups, receiving either a vacuum-formed retainer or a bonded retainer for the mandibular arch. Qualification criteria was patients approaching debond after treatment with preadjusted edgewise fixed orthodontic appliance whose pretreatment records and study models were accessible to confirm pretreatment labial segment crowding or spacing and who had clinically acceptable alignment after treatment. The principle purpose was to research the clinical adequacy of the 2 kinds of retainers regarding changes in incisor irregularity at one year of preservation of treatment outcome. The following measurements were documented at each time point (6 and 12 months) with a digital caliper: Little’s irregularity index, intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length, extraction space opening.\nResult: The two groups were very much coordinated as for age, sex, clinical qualities, and treatment plans. Four patients did not attend in the follow up period and the study finished up in 36 patients. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups for changes in Little’s irregularity index and arch length. Vacuum-formed retainer group showed greater changes than the bonded retainer group (P value 0.035 and 0.022). There were also no statistically significant changes at any time for intercanine width and intermolar width.\nConclusion: Some relapse is likely after fixed orthodontic treatment regardless of retainer choice, and this is negligible in many patients after debond. Bonded retainers have a superior capacity to hold the mandibular incisor arrangement after orthodontic treatment than vacuum-formed retainers. Trial registration: not done.\nBangladesh Medical Res Counc Bull 2022; 48: 105-111","PeriodicalId":8704,"journal":{"name":"Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Efficiency of Bonded retainers and Vacuum formed retainers- A Randomized Clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"Md Asraqur Rahman Raihan, M. Sajedeen, M. Hussain, Tahsina Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.3329/bmrcb.v48i2.62295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Major goal of orthodontic treatment is long term stability of the corrected teeth after orthodontic treatment. After orthodontic treatment there is always chance of relapse. To prevent relapse several appliances are available as a retention device such as bonded fixed retainers, vacuum formed retainers, removable Hawley retainer, Begg’s retainer. Now a days vacuum formed retainer has become more acceptable due to low cost, esthetic and easy fabrication.\\nObjective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical success of bonded retainers with vacuumformed retainers, as far as keeping up the consequences of orthodontic treatment in the lower arch as long as a year after debond.\\nMethods: This was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) carried out at the department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka. In the study a total of 40 subjects who had fulfilled the selection criteria were randomly allocated to one of two groups, receiving either a vacuum-formed retainer or a bonded retainer for the mandibular arch. Qualification criteria was patients approaching debond after treatment with preadjusted edgewise fixed orthodontic appliance whose pretreatment records and study models were accessible to confirm pretreatment labial segment crowding or spacing and who had clinically acceptable alignment after treatment. The principle purpose was to research the clinical adequacy of the 2 kinds of retainers regarding changes in incisor irregularity at one year of preservation of treatment outcome. The following measurements were documented at each time point (6 and 12 months) with a digital caliper: Little’s irregularity index, intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length, extraction space opening.\\nResult: The two groups were very much coordinated as for age, sex, clinical qualities, and treatment plans. Four patients did not attend in the follow up period and the study finished up in 36 patients. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups for changes in Little’s irregularity index and arch length. Vacuum-formed retainer group showed greater changes than the bonded retainer group (P value 0.035 and 0.022). There were also no statistically significant changes at any time for intercanine width and intermolar width.\\nConclusion: Some relapse is likely after fixed orthodontic treatment regardless of retainer choice, and this is negligible in many patients after debond. Bonded retainers have a superior capacity to hold the mandibular incisor arrangement after orthodontic treatment than vacuum-formed retainers. Trial registration: not done.\\nBangladesh Medical Res Counc Bull 2022; 48: 105-111\",\"PeriodicalId\":8704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3329/bmrcb.v48i2.62295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/bmrcb.v48i2.62295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:正畸治疗的主要目标是矫正后牙齿的长期稳定性。正畸治疗后总有复发的机会。为了防止复发,有几种固定装置可用,如粘接固定固位器、真空成形固位器、可移动Hawley固位器、Begg固位器。现在,由于成本低,美观和易于制造,真空形成的固位器已经变得更容易接受。目的:本研究的目的是分析粘接固位器与真空成形固位器的临床成功,并在脱牙后的一年内保持下弓正畸治疗的效果。方法:这是一项随机临床试验(RCT),在达卡Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib医科大学正畸科进行。在这项研究中,总共有40名符合选择标准的受试者被随机分配到两组中的一组,接受真空形成的下颌弓固位器或粘合固位器。合格标准是使用预调整的边缘固定正畸矫治器治疗后接近脱牙的患者,预处理记录和研究模型可用于确认预处理唇段拥挤或间距,治疗后临床可接受的对齐。主要目的是研究两种固位器在保存治疗结果一年后对切牙不规则度变化的临床充分性。在每个时间点(6个月和12个月)用数字卡尺记录以下测量:利特尔不规则指数、犬齿间宽度、磨牙间宽度、弓长、拔牙间隙开度。结果:两组患者在年龄、性别、临床素质、治疗方案等方面基本一致。4名患者在随访期间没有参加,36名患者的研究结束。两组间Little 's不规则指数及弓长变化差异有统计学意义。真空成形固位体组比粘接固位体组变化更大(P值分别为0.035和0.022)。在任何时候,犬齿间宽度和磨牙间宽度也没有统计学上的显著变化。结论:固定正畸治疗后,不论选择何种固位器,都有可能出现一定程度的复发,这在脱牙后的许多患者中是可以忽略不计的。粘结固位体在正畸治疗后对下切牙排列的固位能力优于真空固位体。试验注册:未完成。孟加拉国医疗援助理事会2022年公报;48: 105 - 111
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Efficiency of Bonded retainers and Vacuum formed retainers- A Randomized Clinical trial
Background: Major goal of orthodontic treatment is long term stability of the corrected teeth after orthodontic treatment. After orthodontic treatment there is always chance of relapse. To prevent relapse several appliances are available as a retention device such as bonded fixed retainers, vacuum formed retainers, removable Hawley retainer, Begg’s retainer. Now a days vacuum formed retainer has become more acceptable due to low cost, esthetic and easy fabrication. Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical success of bonded retainers with vacuumformed retainers, as far as keeping up the consequences of orthodontic treatment in the lower arch as long as a year after debond. Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) carried out at the department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka. In the study a total of 40 subjects who had fulfilled the selection criteria were randomly allocated to one of two groups, receiving either a vacuum-formed retainer or a bonded retainer for the mandibular arch. Qualification criteria was patients approaching debond after treatment with preadjusted edgewise fixed orthodontic appliance whose pretreatment records and study models were accessible to confirm pretreatment labial segment crowding or spacing and who had clinically acceptable alignment after treatment. The principle purpose was to research the clinical adequacy of the 2 kinds of retainers regarding changes in incisor irregularity at one year of preservation of treatment outcome. The following measurements were documented at each time point (6 and 12 months) with a digital caliper: Little’s irregularity index, intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length, extraction space opening. Result: The two groups were very much coordinated as for age, sex, clinical qualities, and treatment plans. Four patients did not attend in the follow up period and the study finished up in 36 patients. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups for changes in Little’s irregularity index and arch length. Vacuum-formed retainer group showed greater changes than the bonded retainer group (P value 0.035 and 0.022). There were also no statistically significant changes at any time for intercanine width and intermolar width. Conclusion: Some relapse is likely after fixed orthodontic treatment regardless of retainer choice, and this is negligible in many patients after debond. Bonded retainers have a superior capacity to hold the mandibular incisor arrangement after orthodontic treatment than vacuum-formed retainers. Trial registration: not done. Bangladesh Medical Res Counc Bull 2022; 48: 105-111
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The official publication of the Bangladesh Medical Research Council.
×
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