Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2020 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 4

Approaches of Turkish Dentists in Cases of Orthodontic Lingual Retainer Failures

Sayfa
239–245
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Different demographic characteristics seem to have an impact on these approaches.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: This study aimed to investigate the approaches of Turkish dentists in cases of orthodontic lingual retainer failures.Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was used to quantify dentists’ approaches to lingual retainer failures.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The third part had questions related to the type of retainers bonded solely to the canines or to all the 6 anterior teeth.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Different demographic characteristics seem to have an impact on these approaches.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the approaches of Turkish dentists in cases of orthodontic lingual retainer failures.Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was used to quantify dentists’ approaches to lingual retainer failures. The first part of the study investigated the demographic characteristics. In the second part, dentists’ approaches to cases of failed retainers were assessed. The third part had questions related to the type of retainers bonded solely to the canines or to all the 6 anterior teeth. Descriptive statistics were done with Pearson’s χ2 test, and Mann-Whitney U test was used.Results: A total of 320 Turkish dentists participated in the survey. Experienced and public dentists preferred to advise the patients whose retainers had failed to contact their orthodontist more frequently (p<0.05). Regarding their approach to patients who requested removal of the bonded retainer, inexperienced dentists more frequently preferred to refer the patients to an orthodontist (p<0.05). With regard to factors affecting the choice to remove a bonded retainer, the most and the least importance were attributed to the orthodontist’s opinion and the patient’s demand, respectively.Conclusion: Turkish dentists prefer referring their patients to orthodontists rather than performing procedures in cases of failure associated with bonded retainers. Different demographic characteristics seem to have an impact on these approaches.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KÜÇÜKÖNDER, A., HATİPOĞLU, Ö. F. (2020). Approaches of Turkish Dentists in Cases of Orthodontic Lingual Retainer Failures. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 4, 239–245. https://ajindex.com/articles/374997

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (17)

  1. Blake M, Bibby K. Retention and stability: A review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998
  2. [Crossref] 2. Littlewood S, Millett D, Doubleday B, Bearn D, Worthington H, Sampson WJ. Retention procedures for stabilizing tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Aust Dent J 2006
  3. [Crossref] 3. Blake M, Garvey MT. Rationale for retention following orthodontic treatment. J Can Dent Assoc 1998
  4. Padmos JAD, Fudalej PS, Renkema AM. Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018
  5. [Crossref] 5. Renkema AM, Hélène Sips ET, Bronkhorst E, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A survey on orthodontic retention procedures in The Netherlands. Eur J Orthod 2009
  6. [Crossref] 6. Singh P, Grammati S, Kirschen R. Orthodontic retention patterns in the United Kingdom. J Orthod 2009
  7. [Crossref] 7. Valiathan M, Hughes E. Results of a survey-based study to identify common retention practices in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010
  8. [Crossref] 8. Wong PM, Freer TJ. A comprehensive survey of retention procedures in Australia and New Zealand. Aust Orthod J 2004
  9. Vandevska-Radunovic V, Espeland L, Stenvik A. Retention: Type, duration and need for common guidelines. A survey of Norwegian orthodontists. Orthodontics (Chic) 2013
  10. [Crossref] 10. Paşaoğlu A, Aras I, Mert A, Aras A. Survey on retention protocols among Turkish orthodontists. Turk J Orthod. 2016
  11. [Crossref] 11. Watted N, Wieber M, Teuscher T, Schmitz N. Comparison of incisor mobility after insertion of canine-to-canine lingual retainers bonded to two or to six teeth a clinical study. J Orofac Orthop 2001
  12. [Crossref] 12. Butler J, Dowling P. Orthodontic bonded retainers. J Ir Dent Assoc 2005
  13. Pandis N, Christensen L, Eliades T. Long-term clinical failure rate of molar tubes bonded with a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod 2005
  14. Taner T, Aksu M. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod 2012
  15. [Crossref] 15. Schneider E, Ruf S. Upper bonded retainers: Survival and failure rates. Angle Orthod 2011
  16. [Crossref] 16. Habegger M, Renkema AM, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. A survey of general dentists regarding orthodontic retention procedures. Eur J Orthod 2017
  17. [Crossref] 17. Turkish statistical institute. Statis