Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2019 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of Two Retention Appliances with Respect to Clinical Effectiveness

Pages
72–78
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)

Pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention lateral cephalometric measurements were not statisticallysignificantly different between and within the groups.Conclusion: According to the results of a repeated-measures analysis of variance with two factors, and although an increase wasfound in the maxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes, the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers was found to besimilar during the retention period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers during the retention period.Methods: A total of 30 subjects whose fixed orthodontic treatment results were evaluated according to the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III Objective Grading system were included in this study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The subjects were instructedto wear their retainers full time for 6 months, except during meals, and during nights only for 6 months.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention lateral cephalometric measurements were not statisticallysignificantly different between and within the groups.Conclusion: According to the results of a repeated-measures analysis of variance with two factors, and although an increase wasfound in the maxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes, the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers was found to besimilar during the retention period.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers during the retention period.Methods: A total of 30 subjects whose fixed orthodontic treatment results were evaluated according to the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III Objective Grading system were included in this study. After the removal of orthodontic attachments, the study participants were equally divided into two retention protocols: upper-lower Essix and upper-lower Hawley. The subjects were instructedto wear their retainers full time for 6 months, except during meals, and during nights only for 6 months. The clinical effectiveness ofthe retainers was evaluated according to the overjet, overbite, maxillary, and mandibular intercanine widths, intermolar widths, archlengths, irregularity indexes, and lateral cephalometric measurements. All dental model and lateral cephalometric measurementswere performed by the same investigator during three periods: pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention.Results: The overjet, overbite, maxillary, and mandibular intercanine widths; intermolar widths; and arch lengths and lateral cephalometric measurements were not statistically significantly different between the groups and identified time periods. Although themaxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes increased from the post-treatment to post-retention periods, the difference was notstatistically significant. Pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention lateral cephalometric measurements were not statisticallysignificantly different between and within the groups.Conclusion: According to the results of a repeated-measures analysis of variance with two factors, and although an increase wasfound in the maxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes, the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers was found to besimilar during the retention period.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, Y., TUNCA, M., KESKİN, S. (2019). Comparison of Two Retention Appliances with Respect to Clinical Effectiveness. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2, 72–78. https://ajindex.com/articles/374682

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Valladares-Neto J, Evangelista K, Miranda de Torres H, Melo Pithon M, Alves Garcia Santos Silva M. A 22-year follow-up of the nonsurgical expansion of maxillary and mandibular arches in a young adult: Are the outcomes stable, relapsed, or unstable with aging? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Melrose C, Millett DT. Toward a perspective on orthodontic retention? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Al Rahma WJ, Kaklamanos EG, Athanasiou AE. Performance of Hawley-type retainers: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Orthod 2018
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Proffit WR. Retention. Proffit WR, Fields H, Sarver D, editors. Contemporary Orthodontics. Mosby: Elsevier
  5. p.606-16. 5. Mai W, He J, Meng H, Jiang Y, Huang C, Li M, et al. Comparison of vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016
  7. CD002283. [CrossRef] 7. Al-Moghrabi D, Pandis N, Fleming PS. The effects of fixed and removal orthodontic retainers: a systematic review. Prog Orthod 2016
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Luther F, Nelson-Moon Z, editors. Orthodontic retainers and removable appliances: Principles of design and use. Oxford-UK: Wiley-Blackwell
  9. Swidi AJ, Taylor RW, Tadlock LP, Buschang PH. Recent advances in orthodontic retention methods: A review article. J World Fed Orthod 2018
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod 1977
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Ramazanzadeh B, Ahrari F, Hosseini ZS. The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols. J Clin Exp Dent 2018
  12. [CrossRef] 12. Manzon L, Fratto G, Rossi E, Buccheri A. Periodontal health and compliance: A comparison between Essix and Hawley retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018
  13. [CrossRef] 13. Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A, Hollinghurst S, Ewings P, Clark S, et al. Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Eur J Orthod 2007
  14. [CrossRef] 14. Hoybjerg AJ, Currier GF, Kadioğlu O. Evaluation of 3 retention protocols using the American Board of Orthodontics cast and radiograph evaluation. Am J Orthod D