The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two different protocols of wearing vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) with the standard protocol of wearing Hawley retainer in maintaining the results of orthodontic treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single-blind randomized clinical trial consisted of 90 patients who finished orthodontic treatment at the Department of Orthodontics of Mashhad Dental School, and required removable retainers. The participants were randomly divided into 3 groups and received the following treatments. Group 1: Hawley retainers (4 months full-time and then night-only); group 2: VFR_4M (4 months full-time and then night-only); group 3: VFR_1W (1 week full-time and then night-only). The study models were prepared after debond and at 4 and 8 months later, and intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length and the Little’s irregularity index were compared between groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in intercanine and intermolar widths between groups (P<05). Upper arch length was significantly lower in Hawley group than the two VFR groups (p<0.05), but lower arch length values were comparable. Upper irregularity index was significantly lower in two VFR groups compared to Hawley group (p<0.05), whereas in the lower jaw, only VFR_4M group showed significantly lower crowding than Hawley group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both retention regimens of VFRs were more effective than Hawley retainer in maintaining arch length and tooth alignment in the upper arch. For better incisor alignment in the lower jaw, the patients should be advocated to wear VFR 4 months full-time and then at night instead of wearing Hawley retainer. Key words:Essix, Hawley retainer, orthodontic treatment, retention, vacuum-formed retainer.