The Angle orthodontist · 2016
Twelve-year follow-up of mandibular incisor stability: Comparison between two bonded lingual orthodontic retainers.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Schütz-Fransson Ulrike, Lindsten Rune, Bjerklin Krister, Bondemark Lars
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcome 9 years after removal of two different types of fixed retainers used for stabilization of the mandibular anterior segment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four children who had undergone orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both arches were divided into two groups depending on which kind of retainer being used. Twenty-eight of the patients had a canine-to-canine retainer bonded to the canines and 36 had a bonded twistflex retainer 3-3, bonded to each tooth. Measurements were made on study models and lateral head radiographs, before and after treatment, 6 years after treatment, and 12 years after treatment, with a mean of 9.2 years after removal of the retainers.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two groups at the long-term follow-up according to Little's Irregularity Index or available space for the mandibular incisors. The overjet and overbite were reduced after treatment in both groups and stayed stable throughout the observation period. Also, no differences in bonding failures between the two retainers were found.
CONCLUSIONS: Both a canine-to-canine retainer bonded only to the canines and a twistflex retainer 3-3 bonded to each tooth can be recommended. However, neither of the retention types prevented long-term changes of mandibular incisor irregularity or available space for the mandibular incisors after removal of the retainers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four children who had undergone orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both arches were divided into two groups depending on which kind of retainer being used. Twenty-eight of the patients had a canine-to-canine retainer bonded to the canines and 36 had a bonded twistflex retainer 3-3, bonded to each tooth. Measurements were made on study models and lateral head radiographs, before and after treatment, 6 years after treatment, and 12 years after treatment, with a mean of 9.2 years after removal of the retainers.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two groups at the long-term follow-up according to Little's Irregularity Index or available space for the mandibular incisors. The overjet and overbite were reduced after treatment in both groups and stayed stable throughout the observation period. Also, no differences in bonding failures between the two retainers were found.
CONCLUSIONS: Both a canine-to-canine retainer bonded only to the canines and a twistflex retainer 3-3 bonded to each tooth can be recommended. However, neither of the retention types prevented long-term changes of mandibular incisor irregularity or available space for the mandibular incisors after removal of the retainers.