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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Andriekute, Alvyda, Vasiliauskas, Arunas, Sidlauskas, Antanas
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