Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2021
Does quality of orthodontic treatment outcome influence post-treatment stability? A retrospective study investigating short-term stability 2 years after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and in the presence of fixed retainers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gera Arwa, Gera Shadi, Cattaneo Paolo M, Cornelis Marie A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate stability 2 years after orthodontic treatment and to investigate the influence of various pre-treatment and post-treatment prognostic factors on stability.
SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Consecutive patients treated with full fixed appliance and retained with fixed retainers were retrospectively assessed for eligibility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Digital models were analysed at treatment start (T0), end of treatment (T1) and 2 years post-treatment (T2). The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index, Little's Irregularity Index (LII), arch width and length, overjet, overbite and presence of unexpected post-treatment changes were assessed. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to model the relationship of all outcomes with several prognostics simultaneously.
RESULTS: The sample consisted of 287 subjects (mean treatment time: 25.1 months, standard deviation [SD] 7.5; mean post-treatment follow-up: 27.5 months, SD 6.1) with a mean weighted PAR score of 29.5 (SD 8.6) at T0, 1.8 (SD 2.9) at T1 and 3.2 (SD 3.6) at T2. At T1, 95% of the subjects had a perfect LII versus 86% at T2. An increased LII at T1 correlated with increased LII and PAR changes from T1 to T2. PAR at T1 as well as overjet at T0 was a significant prognostic factor for PAR at T2. At T2, five cases (1.7%) showed unexpected post-treatment changes related to fixed retainers.
CONCLUSION: Short-term post-treatment stability with fixed retainers was very good. Prognostic factors for stability included LII and PAR at T1, suggesting that high-quality treatment outcome in the presence of fixed retainers may ensure post-treatment stability.
SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Consecutive patients treated with full fixed appliance and retained with fixed retainers were retrospectively assessed for eligibility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Digital models were analysed at treatment start (T0), end of treatment (T1) and 2 years post-treatment (T2). The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index, Little's Irregularity Index (LII), arch width and length, overjet, overbite and presence of unexpected post-treatment changes were assessed. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to model the relationship of all outcomes with several prognostics simultaneously.
RESULTS: The sample consisted of 287 subjects (mean treatment time: 25.1 months, standard deviation [SD] 7.5; mean post-treatment follow-up: 27.5 months, SD 6.1) with a mean weighted PAR score of 29.5 (SD 8.6) at T0, 1.8 (SD 2.9) at T1 and 3.2 (SD 3.6) at T2. At T1, 95% of the subjects had a perfect LII versus 86% at T2. An increased LII at T1 correlated with increased LII and PAR changes from T1 to T2. PAR at T1 as well as overjet at T0 was a significant prognostic factor for PAR at T2. At T2, five cases (1.7%) showed unexpected post-treatment changes related to fixed retainers.
CONCLUSION: Short-term post-treatment stability with fixed retainers was very good. Prognostic factors for stability included LII and PAR at T1, suggesting that high-quality treatment outcome in the presence of fixed retainers may ensure post-treatment stability.