MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1093/ejo/cjz072

Медицинская библиотека · European journal of orthodontics · 2020

Vacuum-formed retainer versus bonded retainer for dental stabilization in the mandible-a randomized controlled trial. Part I: retentive capacity 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment.

Krämer Anke, Sjöström Mats, Hallman Mats, Feldmann Ingalill

СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Evidence concerning the most appropriate retention strategy after orthodontic treatment is still inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

This trial compares the retentive capacity of vacuum-formed Essix C-retainers (VFR) and bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers (CTC) in the mandible 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment.

TRIAL

DESIGN

A single-centre two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This study included 104 adolescent patients, computer-generated randomized with sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes into two groups and stratified by gender (52 females and 52 males). The patients were treated with fixed appliances with and without tooth extractions in both jaws and were ready for debond. In the intervention arm, patients received a VFR (n = 52); in the active comparator arm, patients received a CTC (n = 52). Dental casts were obtained at debond (T1), after 6 months (T2), and after 18 months (T3). The casts were digitized. The retentive capacity was evaluated on digital three-dimensional models using Little's Irregularity Index (LII), overbite, overjet, arch length, and intermolar and intercanine width.

RESULTS

Baseline values were similar for both groups. Statistically significant increases were noted in LII and overbite, mainly between T1 and T2, but also between T1 and T3 in the VFR group (LII = 0.52 mm, P < 0.001, overbite = 0.51 mm, P < 0.001) and in the CTC group (LII = 0.45 mm P < 0.001, overbite = 0.36 mm, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups. Overjet showed small variations during the observation periods but was overall stable within and between groups after 18 months. Arch length decreased slightly in both groups after 6 and 18 months. Intermolar and intercanine widths remained stable after debond.

LIMITATIONS: Patients, operator, and outcome assessor could not be blinded due to the study design.

CONCLUSIONS

VFR and CTC have the same retention capacity in the mandible after 6 and 18 months. Relapse mainly occurs during the first 6 months of retention, but the post-treatment changes are generally small. Shorter VFRs in the mandible do not cause negative vertical effects. Part-time wear regimen is not associated with increased relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03070444.

Для цитирования: Krämer Anke, Sjöström Mats, Hallman Mats, Feldmann Ingalill. Vacuum-formed retainer versus bonded retainer for dental stabilization in the mandible-a randomized controlled trial. Part I: retentive capacity 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment.. European journal of orthodontics. 2020. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjz072.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.