Cargando…

In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review

BACKGROUND: Relapse following orthodontic treatment is a constant concern of orthodontists. Fixed retention is preferred especially for the lower arch by most orthodontists. OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on in vivo studies. The main objective is to determine the survival rates of different types o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: LABUNET, ANCA VICTORIA, BADEA, MÎNDRA
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632886/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609260
http://dx.doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-451
_version_ 1782399111341801472
author LABUNET, ANCA VICTORIA
BADEA, MÎNDRA
author_facet LABUNET, ANCA VICTORIA
BADEA, MÎNDRA
author_sort LABUNET, ANCA VICTORIA
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Relapse following orthodontic treatment is a constant concern of orthodontists. Fixed retention is preferred especially for the lower arch by most orthodontists. OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on in vivo studies. The main objective is to determine the survival rates of different types of retainer: glass-fiber reinforced composite resin, polyethylene or multistrand stainless steel wire bonded to each tooth from canine to canine in the mandibular arch. A second objective is to assess which of these types is less likely to cause additional problems and the third objective is to evaluate the factors that may influence retainer survival. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There were 8 studies identified that matched the objectives stated. Current in vivo studies on survival rate take little notice of the role of the material used for bonding of the fixed retainer. It is not possible to draw a conclusion on reliability of new types of retainers glass fiber reinforced composite resin or polyethylene compared to multistrand stainless steel wire. The multistrand wire remains the gold standard for fixed retention. Although it is a logical outcome that retainer survival is dependent on the application technique, there seems to be no research outcome proving that operator experience, moisture control are essential, nor does patient age or sex have statistically proven effects on survival rates. Adequate studies that involve such aspects should be performed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4632886
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46328862015-11-25 In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review LABUNET, ANCA VICTORIA BADEA, MÎNDRA Clujul Med Review BACKGROUND: Relapse following orthodontic treatment is a constant concern of orthodontists. Fixed retention is preferred especially for the lower arch by most orthodontists. OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on in vivo studies. The main objective is to determine the survival rates of different types of retainer: glass-fiber reinforced composite resin, polyethylene or multistrand stainless steel wire bonded to each tooth from canine to canine in the mandibular arch. A second objective is to assess which of these types is less likely to cause additional problems and the third objective is to evaluate the factors that may influence retainer survival. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There were 8 studies identified that matched the objectives stated. Current in vivo studies on survival rate take little notice of the role of the material used for bonding of the fixed retainer. It is not possible to draw a conclusion on reliability of new types of retainers glass fiber reinforced composite resin or polyethylene compared to multistrand stainless steel wire. The multistrand wire remains the gold standard for fixed retention. Although it is a logical outcome that retainer survival is dependent on the application technique, there seems to be no research outcome proving that operator experience, moisture control are essential, nor does patient age or sex have statistically proven effects on survival rates. Adequate studies that involve such aspects should be performed. Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy 2015 2015-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4632886/ /pubmed/26609260 http://dx.doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-451 Text en This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Review
LABUNET, ANCA VICTORIA
BADEA, MÎNDRA
In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review
title In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review
title_full In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review
title_fullStr In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review
title_full_unstemmed In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review
title_short In vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review
title_sort in vivo orthodontic retainer survival - a review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632886/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609260
http://dx.doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-451
work_keys_str_mv AT labunetancavictoria invivoorthodonticretainersurvivalareview
AT badeamindra invivoorthodonticretainersurvivalareview