Clear bow-Hawley和真空成形固位器固位特性的比较——一项随机对照试验

Q3 Dentistry
Sowmithra Devi, R. Jain
{"title":"Clear bow-Hawley和真空成形固位器固位特性的比较——一项随机对照试验","authors":"Sowmithra Devi, R. Jain","doi":"10.4103/jofs.jofs_259_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Retention is an important stage of orthodontic treatment which involves maintaining the teeth in the corrected position. The aim of this trial was to compare the retentive capacity of Clear bow Hawley (CBR) and Vacuum formed retainer (VFR) 1 year after completion of orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial included 46 subjects who were treated with fixed orthodontic appliances and were advised to use removable orthodontic retainers. The subjects were randomly allocated to two groups, group 1–23 subjects who received CBRs and group 2–23 subjects who received VFRs. Retainers were advised immediately after debonding and patients were recalled after 1 year. Lateral cephalograms and intraoral scans were taken and certain parameters (inter canine, intermolar width, little’s irregularity index, arch length) were evaluated. Descriptive statistics and paired t-test were done to determine and compare the retentive capacity of the retainers. Results: No statistically significant relapse was noted and no differences between retainers for inter canine, intermolar width, arch length, little’s irregularity index, and cephalometric changes were noted (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both the CBRs and VFRs are equally effective in retaining the corrected malocclusion, CBRs can be considered as a very good alternative to VFRs.","PeriodicalId":16651,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orofacial Sciences","volume":"14 1","pages":"128 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Retention Characteristics of Clear bow Hawley’s and Vacuum Formed Retainers—A Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Sowmithra Devi, R. Jain\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jofs.jofs_259_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Retention is an important stage of orthodontic treatment which involves maintaining the teeth in the corrected position. The aim of this trial was to compare the retentive capacity of Clear bow Hawley (CBR) and Vacuum formed retainer (VFR) 1 year after completion of orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial included 46 subjects who were treated with fixed orthodontic appliances and were advised to use removable orthodontic retainers. The subjects were randomly allocated to two groups, group 1–23 subjects who received CBRs and group 2–23 subjects who received VFRs. Retainers were advised immediately after debonding and patients were recalled after 1 year. Lateral cephalograms and intraoral scans were taken and certain parameters (inter canine, intermolar width, little’s irregularity index, arch length) were evaluated. Descriptive statistics and paired t-test were done to determine and compare the retentive capacity of the retainers. Results: No statistically significant relapse was noted and no differences between retainers for inter canine, intermolar width, arch length, little’s irregularity index, and cephalometric changes were noted (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both the CBRs and VFRs are equally effective in retaining the corrected malocclusion, CBRs can be considered as a very good alternative to VFRs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orofacial Sciences\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"128 - 133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orofacial Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jofs.jofs_259_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orofacial Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jofs.jofs_259_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

保持是正畸治疗的一个重要阶段,它包括保持牙齿在正确的位置。本试验的目的是比较正畸治疗完成1年后清弓霍利固位器(CBR)和真空成形固位器(VFR)的固位能力。材料和方法:这项前瞻性随机对照试验包括46名使用固定正畸矫治器并建议使用可移动正畸固位器的受试者。受试者随机分为两组,1-23组接受cbr, 2-23组接受VFRs。脱粘后立即建议使用固位器,1年后召回患者。采用侧位头颅和口内扫描,评估某些参数(犬齿间、磨牙间宽度、小不规则指数、弓长)。采用描述性统计和配对t检验来确定和比较固位器的固位能力。结果:两组牙间、磨牙间宽度、牙弓长度、利氏不规则指数、头侧测量变化差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:CBRs与VFRs对矫正错的固位效果相同,CBRs可作为VFRs的一种很好的替代方案。
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 Retention Characteristics of Clear bow Hawley’s and Vacuum Formed Retainers—A Randomized Controlled Trial
Introduction: Retention is an important stage of orthodontic treatment which involves maintaining the teeth in the corrected position. The aim of this trial was to compare the retentive capacity of Clear bow Hawley (CBR) and Vacuum formed retainer (VFR) 1 year after completion of orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial included 46 subjects who were treated with fixed orthodontic appliances and were advised to use removable orthodontic retainers. The subjects were randomly allocated to two groups, group 1–23 subjects who received CBRs and group 2–23 subjects who received VFRs. Retainers were advised immediately after debonding and patients were recalled after 1 year. Lateral cephalograms and intraoral scans were taken and certain parameters (inter canine, intermolar width, little’s irregularity index, arch length) were evaluated. Descriptive statistics and paired t-test were done to determine and compare the retentive capacity of the retainers. Results: No statistically significant relapse was noted and no differences between retainers for inter canine, intermolar width, arch length, little’s irregularity index, and cephalometric changes were noted (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both the CBRs and VFRs are equally effective in retaining the corrected malocclusion, CBRs can be considered as a very good alternative to VFRs.
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
Journal of Orofacial Sciences
Journal of Orofacial Sciences Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orofacial Sciences is dedicated to noblest profession of Dentistry, and to the young & blossoming intellects of dentistry, with whom the future of dentistry will be cherished better. The prime aim of this journal is to advance the science and art of dentistry. This journal is an educational tool to encourage and share the acquired knowledge with our peers. It also to improves the standards and quality of therauptic methods. This journal assures you to gain knowledge in recent advances and research activities. The journal publishes original scientific papers with special emphasis on research, unusual case reports, editorial, review articles, book reviews & other relevant information in context of high professional standards.
×
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