Background: The long-term evidence regarding failures of fixed retainers is limited and the aim of this cohort study was to assess the long-term risk of failure of one type of maxillary and two types of mandibular fixed lingual retainers.
Trial Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Methods: Eighty-eight patients in retention 10-15 years after orthodontic treatment were included. The type of failure; number of failures per tooth, per patient, and retainer; and adverse effects were assessed by (1) a questionnaire, (2) clinical examination, and (3) screening patients' clinical charts. Descriptive statistics were calculated and a Cox regression was used to assess possible predictors for mandibular retainer survival.
Results And Conclusions: In the mandible, 47 (53.4%) .016″ × .022″ braided stainless steel retainers (SS) were bonded to all six anterior teeth, and 41 (46.6%) .027″ β-titanium (TMA) retainers were bonded to the canines only. From the SS retainers 40.4% and of the TMA retainers 61% had no failures during the whole observation period. SS failures per retainer were 2.17 (3.15) vs. 0.66 (1.03) for TMA. The type of retainer was the only significant predictor for failure. In the maxilla, 82 (93.2%) .016″ × .022″ braided SS retainers were bonded to all four incisors and six retainers (6.8%) to all six anterior teeth. The latter group was not further analyzed due to the small sample size. From the retainers bonded to all four incisors, 74.4% had no failure during the whole observation period. SS average number of failures per retainer bonded to the four incisors was 1.14 (SD 2.93). Overall, detachments were the most frequent type of first failure followed by composite damage. From the original mandibular retainers 98.9% and of the original maxillary retainers 97.6% were still in situ 10-15 years after debonding. No adverse torque changes were observed.
Limitations: Potential effects of selection bias, information bias, and attrition bias as well as possible confounding factors cannot be fully excluded in this study.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6643008 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0279-8 | DOI Listing |
Turk J Orthod
December 2024
Trakya University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Edirne, Turkey.
Objective: This study aims to compare the impact of titanium and stainless steel (SS) retainer wires on lower incisor stability and periodontal health.
Methods: Fifty patients between the ages of 14.1 and 29.
Dental Press J Orthod
December 2024
Ingá University Center, School of Dentistry (Maringá/PR, Brazil).
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the orthodontic retention protocols used by Brazilian orthodontists.
Methods: This cross-sectional study included 693 orthodontists who answered a web-based questionnaire with 22 questions regarding the participants' characteristics, their retainers' prescriptions, follow-up duration, and appliance fabrication.
Results: A 20.
J Esthet Restor Dent
December 2024
Department of Orthodontics, Ingá University Center UNINGÁ, Maringá, Brazil.
Objective: Gingival recession is a complication that can occur after orthodontic treatment, and its cause is still very controversial in the literature. The objective of this study was to report a clinical case of orthodontic retreatment conducted with in-office aligners and root coverage using free gingival graft, connective tissue graft, and Emdogaim for a patient with severe gingival recession.
Clinical Considerations: This report presents a potential solution to correct a gingival recession with in-office clear aligner.
BMC Oral Health
November 2024
State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Orthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, No. 14, 3rd Section of Renmin Nan Road, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!