The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers-Our Clinical Experience.

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

doi:10.3390/children7120295

Luminita Ligia Vaida, Florian Dorel Bodog + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/children7120295

Copy DOI

Abstract

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).

Highlights

The aim of the orthodontic treatment is to improve oral functioning and health and to enhance dento-facial esthetics, self-esteem, and oral health-related quality of life [1]
The inclusion criteria in this retrospective study were as following: (1) patients to whom the phase of active orthodontic treatment at the upper arch was performed with fixed orthodontic appliances; (2) patients to whom a correct dental alignment/correct three-dimensional positioning was achieved, and inclination within normal limits of the upper frontal group; (3) patients who could be monitored for a period of at least 1 year in the retention phase; (4) crowding at the start of the orthodontic treatment, good alignment and clinically acceptable outcome at the end of the active treatment
We considered as severe relapse the cases where the irregularity index was over 1 mm or with 1 to A-Pog value differences of over 2 degrees compared to the value at the end of the active phase of the orthodontic treatment; these situations required the reapplication of fixed orthodontic appliances or the use of clear aligners

Summary

Introduction

The aim of the orthodontic treatment is to improve oral functioning and health and to enhance dento-facial esthetics, self-esteem, and oral health-related quality of life [1]. Retention is a sine-qua-non condition of orthodontic treatment and its aim is to maintain the teeth in the correct position obtained at the end of the active phase of the orthodontic treatment. The omission of the retention phase has as consequence the relapse, the tendency for the initial malocclusion to reappear [2,3]. Relapse may occur due to imbalances in the gingival fibers, periodontal tissues, occlusion, or facial soft tissues [4,5]. Unwanted changes may occur after the removal of the orthodontic fixed appliance (at the end of the active phase of orthodontic treatment) in growing patients, due to unfavorable growth trends. No prediction can be made regarding the risk of relapse in the event of giving

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion