Cargando…
A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention
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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5632597/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28990138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0185-x |
_version_ | 1783269727793053696 |
---|---|
author | Andriekute, Alvyda Vasiliauskas, Arunas Sidlauskas, Antanas |
author_facet | Andriekute, Alvyda Vasiliauskas, Arunas Sidlauskas, Antanas |
author_sort | Andriekute, Alvyda |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5632597 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56325972017-10-24 A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention Andriekute, Alvyda Vasiliauskas, Arunas Sidlauskas, Antanas Prog Orthod Research 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. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-10-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5632597/ /pubmed/28990138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0185-x Text en © 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. |
spellingShingle | Research Andriekute, Alvyda Vasiliauskas, Arunas Sidlauskas, Antanas A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention |
title | A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention |
title_full | A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention |
title_fullStr | A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention |
title_full_unstemmed | A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention |
title_short | A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention |
title_sort | survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5632597/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28990138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0185-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT andriekutealvyda asurveyofprotocolsandtrendsinorthodonticretention AT vasiliauskasarunas asurveyofprotocolsandtrendsinorthodonticretention AT sidlauskasantanas asurveyofprotocolsandtrendsinorthodonticretention AT andriekutealvyda surveyofprotocolsandtrendsinorthodonticretention AT vasiliauskasarunas surveyofprotocolsandtrendsinorthodonticretention AT sidlauskasantanas surveyofprotocolsandtrendsinorthodonticretention |