Cargando…

“Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: Recently, Vacuum formed retainers (VFRs) are preferred as an Orthodontic retention appliance over conventional Begg’s retainers. Very few studies have been conducted between VFRs and Begg’s retainers. Hence, this study aims at assessing the effectiveness, oral hygiene and acceptability b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patnaik, Payada, Nanda, Smruti Bhusan, Mishra, Sumita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10169470/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37161557
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03010-1
_version_ 1785039048521285632
author Patnaik, Payada
Nanda, Smruti Bhusan
Mishra, Sumita
author_facet Patnaik, Payada
Nanda, Smruti Bhusan
Mishra, Sumita
author_sort Patnaik, Payada
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recently, Vacuum formed retainers (VFRs) are preferred as an Orthodontic retention appliance over conventional Begg’s retainers. Very few studies have been conducted between VFRs and Begg’s retainers. Hence, this study aims at assessing the effectiveness, oral hygiene and acceptability between VFRs and Begg’s retainers with a follow up period of 1 year. METHODS: Eighty patients who completed fixed Orthodontic treatment were included. Retainers were delivered on the same day of debonding. Retainer 1/ R1 stands for VFRs and Retainer 2/ R2 stands for Begg’s retainers. The retainers were randomly allocated to both the arches. 40 VFRs and Begg’s retainers in maxillary and mandibular arch were given respectively. Effectiveness, oral hygiene condition were performed at T(0) (After debonding), T(1) (3 months after using retainers), T(2) (6 months after using retainers), T(3) (9 months after using retainers), T(4) (12 months after using retainers) follow up stages, except the feedback form and the breakage of retainers that were filled at T(4) stage. RESULTS: Both R(1) and R(2) retainers showed improvement in teeth alignment in both the arches at follow up stages. Interproximal contacts in maxillary and mandibular arch with VFRs and Begg’s retainers improved to 77.5% and 82.5% respectively. Considering the marginal ridge, Begg’s retainers and VFRs showed 95%, 55% increased proportion at T(4) respectively (p < 0.05). Patients wearing Beggs’s retainers had significantly better (p < 0.05) oral hygiene status. Significant differences were observed with Begg’s retainers in teeth biting, whereas no significant difference was found with fitting of appliance (p = 0.180) and gingival irritation (p = 1.000). VFRs were well accepted aesthetically that was significant. Retainers were prone to breakage but was not significant (p = 0.162). CONCLUSION: Begg’s wrap around retainers maintain good oral hygiene, improve the teeth alignment, interproximal contact and marginal ridges post Orthodontic treatment with better fitting of the appliance. VFRs are also preferred as they are good in maintaining proper teeth alignment with progressive improvement in the interproximal contacts and are aesthetically pleasing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10169470
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101694702023-05-11 “Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study Patnaik, Payada Nanda, Smruti Bhusan Mishra, Sumita BMC Oral Health Research BACKGROUND: Recently, Vacuum formed retainers (VFRs) are preferred as an Orthodontic retention appliance over conventional Begg’s retainers. Very few studies have been conducted between VFRs and Begg’s retainers. Hence, this study aims at assessing the effectiveness, oral hygiene and acceptability between VFRs and Begg’s retainers with a follow up period of 1 year. METHODS: Eighty patients who completed fixed Orthodontic treatment were included. Retainers were delivered on the same day of debonding. Retainer 1/ R1 stands for VFRs and Retainer 2/ R2 stands for Begg’s retainers. The retainers were randomly allocated to both the arches. 40 VFRs and Begg’s retainers in maxillary and mandibular arch were given respectively. Effectiveness, oral hygiene condition were performed at T(0) (After debonding), T(1) (3 months after using retainers), T(2) (6 months after using retainers), T(3) (9 months after using retainers), T(4) (12 months after using retainers) follow up stages, except the feedback form and the breakage of retainers that were filled at T(4) stage. RESULTS: Both R(1) and R(2) retainers showed improvement in teeth alignment in both the arches at follow up stages. Interproximal contacts in maxillary and mandibular arch with VFRs and Begg’s retainers improved to 77.5% and 82.5% respectively. Considering the marginal ridge, Begg’s retainers and VFRs showed 95%, 55% increased proportion at T(4) respectively (p < 0.05). Patients wearing Beggs’s retainers had significantly better (p < 0.05) oral hygiene status. Significant differences were observed with Begg’s retainers in teeth biting, whereas no significant difference was found with fitting of appliance (p = 0.180) and gingival irritation (p = 1.000). VFRs were well accepted aesthetically that was significant. Retainers were prone to breakage but was not significant (p = 0.162). CONCLUSION: Begg’s wrap around retainers maintain good oral hygiene, improve the teeth alignment, interproximal contact and marginal ridges post Orthodontic treatment with better fitting of the appliance. VFRs are also preferred as they are good in maintaining proper teeth alignment with progressive improvement in the interproximal contacts and are aesthetically pleasing. BioMed Central 2023-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10169470/ /pubmed/37161557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03010-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Patnaik, Payada
Nanda, Smruti Bhusan
Mishra, Sumita
“Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study
title “Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study
title_full “Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study
title_fullStr “Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study
title_full_unstemmed “Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study
title_short “Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study
title_sort “comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and begg’s retainer”: a pilot study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10169470/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37161557
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03010-1
work_keys_str_mv AT patnaikpayada comparingtheeffectivenessacceptabilityandoralhygienestatusbetweenvacuumformedretainerandbeggsretainerapilotstudy
AT nandasmrutibhusan comparingtheeffectivenessacceptabilityandoralhygienestatusbetweenvacuumformedretainerandbeggsretainerapilotstudy
AT mishrasumita comparingtheeffectivenessacceptabilityandoralhygienestatusbetweenvacuumformedretainerandbeggsretainerapilotstudy