Cargando…
The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience
The Hawley retainer (HR) and the vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) are the most common removable retainers in orthodontic treatments. The aim of this retrospective study was to comparatively analyze the behavior of two types of removable retainers—HRs and VFRs—in terms of retainer damage, loss, and the r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7765545/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33339121 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children7120295 |
_version_ | 1783628515257614336 |
---|---|
author | Vaida, Luminita Ligia Bud, Eugen Silviu Halitchi, Liliana Gabriela Cavalu, Simona Todor, Bianca Ioana Negrutiu, Bianca Maria Moca, Abel Emanuel Bodog, Florian Dorel |
author_facet | Vaida, Luminita Ligia Bud, Eugen Silviu Halitchi, Liliana Gabriela Cavalu, Simona Todor, Bianca Ioana Negrutiu, Bianca Maria Moca, Abel Emanuel Bodog, Florian Dorel |
author_sort | Vaida, Luminita Ligia |
collection | PubMed |
description | The Hawley retainer (HR) and the vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) are the most common removable retainers in orthodontic treatments. The aim of this retrospective study was to comparatively analyze the behavior of two types of removable retainers—HRs and VFRs—in terms of retainer damage, loss, and the rate of installation of mild or severe relapse that required recourse to certain therapeutic interventions. The study was performed on 618 orthodontic patients aged 11–17 years, average age 13.98 ± 1.51, out of which 57% were patients having VFRs and the remaining 43% having HRs in the upper arch. We performed an analysis of the two groups of patients—HRs group and VFRs group—at 6 months (T1) and at 12 months (T2) after the application of the retainer. The results showed that 6% of all the retainers were damaged, mostly at T2 (54.1%). Seven percent of all the retainers were lost, mostly at T1 (58.1%). Of all the patients, 9.1% presented mild relapse, mostly at T1 (58.9%), while 2.6% presented severe relapse. The VFRs were significantly more frequently associated with the occurrence of damage than the HRs (p < 0.001). Severe relapse was more frequently associated with the HRs rather than with VFRs (p < 0.05). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7765545 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77655452020-12-27 The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience Vaida, Luminita Ligia Bud, Eugen Silviu Halitchi, Liliana Gabriela Cavalu, Simona Todor, Bianca Ioana Negrutiu, Bianca Maria Moca, Abel Emanuel Bodog, Florian Dorel Children (Basel) Article The Hawley retainer (HR) and the vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) are the most common removable retainers in orthodontic treatments. The aim of this retrospective study was to comparatively analyze the behavior of two types of removable retainers—HRs and VFRs—in terms of retainer damage, loss, and the rate of installation of mild or severe relapse that required recourse to certain therapeutic interventions. The study was performed on 618 orthodontic patients aged 11–17 years, average age 13.98 ± 1.51, out of which 57% were patients having VFRs and the remaining 43% having HRs in the upper arch. We performed an analysis of the two groups of patients—HRs group and VFRs group—at 6 months (T1) and at 12 months (T2) after the application of the retainer. The results showed that 6% of all the retainers were damaged, mostly at T2 (54.1%). Seven percent of all the retainers were lost, mostly at T1 (58.1%). Of all the patients, 9.1% presented mild relapse, mostly at T1 (58.9%), while 2.6% presented severe relapse. The VFRs were significantly more frequently associated with the occurrence of damage than the HRs (p < 0.001). Severe relapse was more frequently associated with the HRs rather than with VFRs (p < 0.05). MDPI 2020-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7765545/ /pubmed/33339121 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children7120295 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Vaida, Luminita Ligia Bud, Eugen Silviu Halitchi, Liliana Gabriela Cavalu, Simona Todor, Bianca Ioana Negrutiu, Bianca Maria Moca, Abel Emanuel Bodog, Florian Dorel The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience |
title | The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience |
title_full | The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience |
title_fullStr | The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience |
title_full_unstemmed | The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience |
title_short | The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience |
title_sort | behavior of two types of upper removable retainers—our clinical experience |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7765545/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33339121 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children7120295 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vaidaluminitaligia thebehavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT budeugensilviu thebehavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT halitchililianagabriela thebehavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT cavalusimona thebehavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT todorbiancaioana thebehavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT negrutiubiancamaria thebehavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT mocaabelemanuel thebehavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT bodogfloriandorel thebehavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT vaidaluminitaligia behavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT budeugensilviu behavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT halitchililianagabriela behavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT cavalusimona behavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT todorbiancaioana behavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT negrutiubiancamaria behavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT mocaabelemanuel behavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience AT bodogfloriandorel behavioroftwotypesofupperremovableretainersourclinicalexperience |