8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The objectives of this study were to evaluate retention procedures and protocols which are used by the orthodontists in Lithuania and to identify commonly used types of dental retainers.

          Methods

          One hundred seven questionnaires in total with 28 multiple-choice questions were sent to all members of the Lithuanian Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire was organized into eight sections representing specific information about socio-demographic status of the respondents, selection of a retention system, details of commonly used fixed and removable retainers, the duration of the retention period, supervision of the retainers, instructions for patients, and necessity of common retention guidelines.

          Results

          The overall response rate was 75.7%. All of the respondents prescribed retainers after the orthodontic therapy. More than 40% of the respondents combined fixed and removable retainers in different clinical situations, but the first-choice option after an expansion of the maxillary dental arch was the removable retainer (54.3%); meanwhile, a fixed retainer was used after a correction of any rotations of the mandibular anterior teeth (49.4%). The Hawley retainer was preferred by 90.1% of the respondents for a maxillary dental arch, and 74.1% of them preferred it for a mandibular dental arch. The most preferable fixed retainer was the retainer bonded to all six anterior teeth (in the upper dental arch—by 71.6%; in the lower one—by 80.2%). There was no consensus on the duration of a retention period. Most of the orthodontists checked up retainers three times during the first year (fixed ones—by 42.0%; removable ones—by 30.0%) and once per year after the 1-year retention period (fixed ones—by 44.4%; removable ones—by 40.7%). All orthodontists gave instructions for taking care of an orthodontic retainer. It was observed that the orthodontists with less than 10 years of experience used a protocol based on the skills learned during their postgraduate studies, while orthodontists with more than 10 years of experience used retention procedures based on their orthodontic work practice ( p < 0.05).

          Conclusions

          A combination of fixed and removable retainers was the most often used in an orthodontic retention. Evidence-based guidelines are desired for a common retention protocol.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention.

          Pretreatment, end of treatment, 10-year postretention, and 20-year postretention records of 31 four premolar extraction cases were assessed to evaluate stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment. Crowding continued to increase during the 10- to 20-year postretention phase but to a lesser degree than from the end of retention to 10 years postretention. Only 10% of the cases were judged to have clinically acceptable mandibular alignment at the last stage of diagnostic records. Cases responded in a diverse unpredictable manner with no apparent predictors of future success when considering pretreatment records or the treated results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers.

            The present study was performed to test the tendency for plaque and calculus build-up along the wire of different types of bonded orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers, whether the presence of such retainers causes any damage to the teeth involved, the failure rate of the retainers, and any changes in incisor alignment during a 3-year period of retention. The four test groups received either retainers made of thick plain wire bonded only to the canines (n = 11); thick spiral wire bonded only to the canines (n = 13); thin, flexible spiral wire bonded to each tooth (n = 11); or removable retainers (n = 14). Accumulation of plaque and calculus along the gingival margin, gingival inflammation and probing attachment level were scored in lingual areas from canine to canine at the time of fixed appliance removal and again 3 years after retainer insertion. Incisor irregularity was measured on plaster models made at the same time periods. Accumulation of plaque and calculus and development of caries along the wire were scored at follow-up. Retainer failures were recorded whenever they occurred. The results revealed no intergroup differences in changes between baseline and follow-up examinations or status along the retainer wire for any of the variables. Gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation were scored less frequently after 3 years in retention than at the time of debonding. No signs of caries were seen adjacent to the wire. Failures were observed of one, four and three of the fixed retainer types, respectively. These patients showed a greater increase in incisor irregularity than the other patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment: University of Washington studies.

              For more than 40 years, research in the Department of Orthodontics, University of Washington (Seattle, WA) has focused on a growing collection of more than 800 sets of patient records to assess stability and relapse of orthodontic treatment. All patients had completed treatment a decade or more before the last set of data. Evaluation of treated premolar extraction patients, treated lower incisor extraction patients, treated non-extraction cases with generalized spacing, patients treated with arch enlargement strategies, and untreated normals showed similar physiologic changes: (1) Arch length decreases after orthodontic treatment. (2) Arch width measured across the mandibular canine teeth typically reduces posttreatment, whether or not the case was expanded during treatment. (3) Mandibular anterior crowding during the posttreatment phase is a continuing phenomenon well into the 20-to-40 years age bracket and likely beyond. (4) Third molar absence or presence, impacted or fully erupted, seems to have little effect on the occurrence or degree of relapse. (5) The degree of post-retention anterior crowding is both unpredictable and variable and no pretreatment variables either from clinical findings, casts, or cephalometric radiographs before or after treatment seem to be useful predictors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.andriekute@yahoo.com
                +37037387560 , arunas@vasiliauskas.ot.lt
                antanas.sidlauskas1@gmail.com
                Journal
                Prog Orthod
                Prog Orthod
                Progress in Orthodontics
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1723-7785
                2196-1042
                9 October 2017
                9 October 2017
                2017
                : 18
                : 31
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 0432 6841, GRID grid.45083.3a, Clinic of Orthodontics, , Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, ; Lukšos-Daumanto st. 6, LT-5016 Kaunas, Lithuania
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6215-9012
                Article
                185
                10.1186/s40510-017-0185-x
                5632597
                28990138
                eb876b3d-cd6e-4e19-8657-193953268e2e
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 15 February 2017
                : 14 August 2017
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                retention,hawley retainer,fixed retainer
                retention, hawley retainer, fixed retainer

                Comments

                Comment on this article