Journals / Acta Odontologica Turcica / 2019 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2

Efficacy of thermoplastic retainers on maintaining the stability of transversal dimensions

Termoplastik pekiştirme apareylerinin transversal boyutların stabilitesinin korunmasındaki etkinliklerinin değerlendirilmesi

Pages
41–46
Publication Date
2019-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Retention with thermoplastic retainers was found to be effective in maintaining transversal arch width in both arches after non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the stability of transversal arch widths of upper and lower dental arches following retention with thermoplastic retainers applied after non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment.Materials and Method: The material consisted of the pre-treatment (T1), post-treatment (T2) and post-retention (T3) cephalometric data and the dental models of 21 patients (16 female, 5 male; average age 17.5 ± 1.2 years), who presented skeletal Class 1 and dental Angle class I relationship with an optimal vertical facial pattern, and small amount of crowding in both jaws.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The patients had been treated by non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment followed by the application of thermoplastic retainer with a mean retention period of 1 year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Retention with thermoplastic retainers was found to be effective in maintaining transversal arch width in both arches after non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ortodontik sabitleyici · Ortodonti · düzeltici

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the stability of transversal arch widths of upper and lower dental arches following retention with thermoplastic retainers applied after non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment.Materials and Method: The material consisted of the pre-treatment (T1), post-treatment (T2) and post-retention (T3) cephalometric data and the dental models of 21 patients (16 female, 5 male; average age 17.5 ± 1.2 years), who presented skeletal Class 1 and dental Angle class I relationship with an optimal vertical facial pattern, and small amount of crowding in both jaws. The patients had been treated by non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment followed by the application of thermoplastic retainer with a mean retention period of 1 year. The dental models were scanned and transferred to digital environment to measure inter-canine, inter-premolar and inter-molar widths for both dental arches. Repeated Measures ANOVA and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests were used for the statistical analysis of the data having normal and non-normal distribution, respectively (α=0.05).Results: Statistically significant differences were found in the upper inter-premolar width between the T1-T2 periods (p<0.001), and between the T1-T3 periods (p<0.001), and in the lower inter-premolar width, between the T1-T2 periods only (p<0.001). In none of the arches and for none of the parameters a statistically significant difference was found between the T2-T3 periods (p>0.05). Conclusion: Retention with thermoplastic retainers was found to be effective in maintaining transversal arch width in both arches after non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment.

Özet

Amaç: Çekimsiz sabit ortodontik tedavi görmüş hastalarda termoplastik apareyler ile yürütülen pekiştirme tedavisi sonunda alt ve üst dental arklardaki transversal boyutların stabilitesinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı.Gereç ve Yöntem: Çekimsiz sabit ortodontik tedavisi tamamlanmış ve termoplastik aparey ile ortalama 1 yıllık pekiştirme dönemi kayıtları mevcut olan iskeletsel Sınıf 1, dişsel Angle sınıf I, optimal dik yön büyüme paterni gösteren, alt ve üst arkta hafif çapraşıklığı bulunan 21 hastanın (16 kız, 5 erkek; yaş ortalaması 17.5 ± 1.2 yıl) tedavi başı (T1), tedavi sonu (T2) ve pekiştirme sonu (T3) lateral sefalometrik kayıtları ile dental modelleri değerlendirmeye alındı. Dental modeller, masaüstü tarayıcı ile taranarak dijital ortama aktarıldı. İnterkanin, interpremolar ve intermolar mesafeler her iki çenede ölçüldü. İstatistiksel olarak, normal dağılım gösteren veriler Tekrarlı Ölçümler İçin ANOVA testi ile, normal dağılım göstermeyen veriler ise Wilcoxon Signed-Rank testi ile değerlendirildi (α=0.05).Bulgular: İstatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklar üst çenede interpremolar mesafe için T1-T2 dönemleri arasında (p<0.001) ve T1-T3 dönemleri arasında (p<0.001), alt çenede ise interpremolar mesafe için yalnızca T1-T2 dönemleri arasında bulundu (p<0.001). Hiçbir çenede, hiçbir parametre için T2-T3 dönemleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p>0.05). Sonuç: Termoplastik apareylerin çekimsiz sabit ortodontik tedavinin pekiştirme dönemi sonunda transversal yöndeki tedavi sonuçlarını koruduğu bulundu.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAVBEK, N. C., TÜRKÖZ, Ç., TUNCER, B. B., TUNCER, C., ULUSOY, Ç. (2019). Efficacy of thermoplastic retainers on maintaining the stability of transversal dimensions. Acta Odontologica Turcica, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2, 41–46. https://ajindex.com/articles/265273

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Lόpez-Areal L, Gandia JL. Relapse of incisor crowding: a visit to the Prince of Salina. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013;18:e356-61. Ramazanzadeh B, Anrari F, Hosseini ZS. The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10:e224-31. Jӓderberg S, Feldmann I, Engström C. Removable thermoplastic appliances as orthodontic retainers-a prospective study of different wear regimes. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:475-9.
  2. Demir A, Babacan H, Nalcacı R, Topcuoglu T. Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. Korean J Orthod 2012;42:255-62.
  3. Sheridan JJ, LeDoux W, McMinn R. Essix retainers:fabrication and supervision for permanent retention. J Clin Orthod 1993;27:37-45.
  4. Dinçer M, IsikAslan B. Effects of thermoplastic retainers on occlusal contacts. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:6-10.
  5. Hoybjerg AJ, Currier GF, Kadioglu O. Evaluation of 3 retention protocols using the American Board of Orthodontics cast and radiograph evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:16-22. O’Rourke N, Albeedh H, Sharma P, Johal A. Effectiveness of bonded and vacuum-formed retainers: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:406-15.
  6. Kaklamanos EG, Kourakou M, Kloukos D, Doulis I, Kavvadia S. Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review. Odontology 2017;105:237-47.
  7. Noroozi H, Djavid GE, Moeinzad H, Teimouri AP. Prediction of arch perimeter changes due to orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:601-7. Strang RHW. The fallacy of denture expansion as a treatment procedure. Angle Orthod 1949;19:12-7.
  8. Kahl-Nieke B, Fischbach H, Schwarze CW. Treatment and postretention changes in dental arch width dimensions- along term evaluation of influencing cofactors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:368-78.
  9. Edman Tynelius G, Bondemark L, Lilja-Karlander E. Evaluation of orthodontic treatment after 1 year of retention-a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:542-7.
  10. Dostalova T, Racek J, Tauferova E, Smutny V. Avearage arch widths and associated changes between initial, post-treatment and post-retention measurements. Braz Dent J 2004;15:204-8.
  11. Lindauer SJ, Shoff RC. Comparison of Essix and Hawley retainers. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:95-7.
  12. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A, Hills D, Killingback N, Ewings P, et al. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a