Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2023
Survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers: comparison of a tube-type retainer and conventional multistrand retainers : A prospective randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Lee Kyungmin Clara, Lim Seung-Weon, Cho Jin-Hyoung, Oh Heesoo, Hwang Hyeon-Shik
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the survival rate of a tube-type mandibular fixed retainer and compare it to conventional multistrand retainers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.
RESULTS: Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.
RESULTS: Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.