Cargando…
“Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial”
BACKGROUND: Bonded retainers are widely used as they are esthetically pleasing, easily acceptable, provide greater stability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems. Though, fracture and bond failure are their shortcomings. Therefore, the objectives of this study we...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7325010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32600325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01167-7 |
_version_ | 1783552070736936960 |
---|---|
author | Nagani, Nasreen Iqbal Ahmed, Imtiaz Tanveer, Faiqa Khursheed, Hafiza Marium Farooqui, Waqas Ahmed |
author_facet | Nagani, Nasreen Iqbal Ahmed, Imtiaz Tanveer, Faiqa Khursheed, Hafiza Marium Farooqui, Waqas Ahmed |
author_sort | Nagani, Nasreen Iqbal |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Bonded retainers are widely used as they are esthetically pleasing, easily acceptable, provide greater stability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems. Though, fracture and bond failure are their shortcomings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the number of bond failures and type of failure pattern between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded retainers. METHODS: Total 60 subjects were recruited initially and were assessed for eligibility, out of which 6 were excluded and 2 were lost to follow up. They were randomly divided into two groups. Fiber reinforced composite (FRC) retainers were inserted in group 1 subjects while group 2 subjects received multistranded stainless steel (MSW) retainers. The subjects were recalled after every 3 months over a period of 1 year. Bond failure rate and failure pattern based on adhesive remnant index were evaluated at each visit. The bond failure rate and failure pattern were compared between the two retainers by using Chi-square test. RESULTS: The bond failure rates were 42.94% for FRC retainer and 31.41% for MSW retainer. Hence, total number of bond failures in both retainers were 37.17%. The difference of bond failure between two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.012). Type “0” failure pattern was detected commonly with both types of retainers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that multistranded stainless steel wire retainer is a superior option to be used for fixed lingual retention in mandibular arch as it exhibited lower bond failure as compared to fiber reinforced composite retainer. Adhesive failure is the most common type of bond failure observed with both types of fixed retainers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ID NCT03881813 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/); March 19, 2019, retrospective registration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7325010 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73250102020-06-30 “Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial” Nagani, Nasreen Iqbal Ahmed, Imtiaz Tanveer, Faiqa Khursheed, Hafiza Marium Farooqui, Waqas Ahmed BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Bonded retainers are widely used as they are esthetically pleasing, easily acceptable, provide greater stability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems. Though, fracture and bond failure are their shortcomings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the number of bond failures and type of failure pattern between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded retainers. METHODS: Total 60 subjects were recruited initially and were assessed for eligibility, out of which 6 were excluded and 2 were lost to follow up. They were randomly divided into two groups. Fiber reinforced composite (FRC) retainers were inserted in group 1 subjects while group 2 subjects received multistranded stainless steel (MSW) retainers. The subjects were recalled after every 3 months over a period of 1 year. Bond failure rate and failure pattern based on adhesive remnant index were evaluated at each visit. The bond failure rate and failure pattern were compared between the two retainers by using Chi-square test. RESULTS: The bond failure rates were 42.94% for FRC retainer and 31.41% for MSW retainer. Hence, total number of bond failures in both retainers were 37.17%. The difference of bond failure between two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.012). Type “0” failure pattern was detected commonly with both types of retainers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that multistranded stainless steel wire retainer is a superior option to be used for fixed lingual retention in mandibular arch as it exhibited lower bond failure as compared to fiber reinforced composite retainer. Adhesive failure is the most common type of bond failure observed with both types of fixed retainers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ID NCT03881813 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/); March 19, 2019, retrospective registration. BioMed Central 2020-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7325010/ /pubmed/32600325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01167-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://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 Article Nagani, Nasreen Iqbal Ahmed, Imtiaz Tanveer, Faiqa Khursheed, Hafiza Marium Farooqui, Waqas Ahmed “Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial” |
title | “Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial” |
title_full | “Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial” |
title_fullStr | “Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial” |
title_full_unstemmed | “Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial” |
title_short | “Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial” |
title_sort | “clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial” |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7325010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32600325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01167-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT naganinasreeniqbal clinicalcomparisonofbondfailureratebetweentwotypesofmandibularcaninecaninebondedorthodonticretainersarandomizedclinicaltrial AT ahmedimtiaz clinicalcomparisonofbondfailureratebetweentwotypesofmandibularcaninecaninebondedorthodonticretainersarandomizedclinicaltrial AT tanveerfaiqa clinicalcomparisonofbondfailureratebetweentwotypesofmandibularcaninecaninebondedorthodonticretainersarandomizedclinicaltrial AT khursheedhafizamarium clinicalcomparisonofbondfailureratebetweentwotypesofmandibularcaninecaninebondedorthodonticretainersarandomizedclinicaltrial AT farooquiwaqasahmed clinicalcomparisonofbondfailureratebetweentwotypesofmandibularcaninecaninebondedorthodonticretainersarandomizedclinicaltrial |