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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaida, Luminita Ligia, Bud, Eugen Silviu, Halitchi, Liliana Gabriela, Cavalu, Simona, Todor, Bianca Ioana, Negrutiu, Bianca Maria, Moca, Abel Emanuel, Bodog, Florian Dorel
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