Abstract

BackgroundBonded 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.MethodsTotal 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionOur 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 registrationID NCT03881813 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/); March 19, 2019, retrospective registration.

Highlights

  • Bonded retainers are widely used as they are esthetically pleasing, acceptable, provide greater stability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems

  • There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics i.e. age, gender and type of malocclusion between the two groups. (Table 1)

  • The results of our study showed that there is greater and significant bond failure observed with Fiber reinforced composite (FRC) retainers as compared to multistranded stainless steel wire (MSW) retainers over a followup of 1 year

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Bonded retainers are widely used as they are esthetically pleasing, acceptable, provide greater stability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems. Permanent retention is highly recommended to ensure the stability and to maintain the long term effects of the dentition achieved by the treatment These consequences can be accomplished by a fixed lingual retainer inserted for an optimum time interval [3, 4]. With the passage of time, these are preferred usually in all cases as they offer numerous benefits for instance they are esthetically pleasing, acceptable, provide greater stability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems [6]. They are technique sensitive and time consuming. Fracture and bond failure are reported [7, 8]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call