Hawley Retainers Research Articles

Comparison of occlusal settling, patient compliance, and retention ability between hawley’s and van der linden retainers – A randomized controlled trial

To compare occlusal settling, patient compliance, and retention ability between Hawley’s and Van Der Linden retainers. Randomized, Parallel-Group, Active Controlled Trial. Randomization and allocation to the particular trial group was done through a lottery system. A total of 72 subjects were randomly assigned in both the groups- Hawley's retainer group (HL) (n = 36) and Van Der Linden group (VL) (n = 36). Each subject was given a removable maxillary retainer and a fixed bonded lingual mandibular retainer. Impressions were recorded on three different time spans i.e. at the time of retainer delivery (T0), 3 months later (T1), and post 6 months of retention (T2). Bite registration records and questionnaire evaluation were taken at time intervals T1 and T2. Each time assessments were performed from the cast by Little's Irregularity Index (LII), Inter Canine Width (ICW), and Inter Molar Width (IMW). Patient compliance was gauged with the help of a Questionnaire. The occlusal settling, patient compliance, and retention ability were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Both groups showed a rise in the number of total contacts (5.39 in HL and 2.42 in VL), and true contacts (6.89 in HL and 4.64 in VL), whereas near contacts declined (-1.53 in HL and 2.22 in VL) at T2. Post 6 months, the difference in LII, ICW, and IMW were slightly higher for VL than HL. This proved the better retention ability of the HL group. Patient compliance determined with the questionnaire showed that overall compliance was greater with HL than with VL. In the course of 6 months of retention, the total near contacts were reduced in both retainers but the total (True + near) contacts elevated, which suggests both retainers facilitated occlusal settling. Changes in values of LII, ICW, and IMW were not significantly different for both groups during T2, which proved the retention ability of both retainers. Patient compliance increased as patients wore either of the retainers, but they were more comfortable with HL.

An evaluation of occlusal changes during orthodontic retention

The problem of orthodontic relapse is of fundamental importance for clinicians. In the literature there are few studies concerning the change in position of the teeth after orthodontic treatment. This study analyzes the occlusal changes during the first six months of orthodontic retention and the effectiveness of the Hawley retainer at the upper arch and the canine-to-canine multi-stranded fixed retainer at the lower arch in maintaining the anterior tooth alignment. 48 patients were recruited. PAR index, ABO DI, ABO CRE, Irregularity Index, intercanine, interpremolar and intermolar widths were measured for each patient before (T0) and at the end (T1) of the fixed orthodontic treatment and after 1 (T2), 3 (T3) and 6 (T4) months of retention. Statistics used were paired samples t-test and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. The p-value was considered statistically significant for P<0.05. During 6 months in retention there was a worsening of PAR index (mean: 1.13±1.08; P<0.001), dental alignment (median: 2.5; P=0.0001) and occlusal relationships (median: 2; P=0.0101); a statistically significant improvement of posterior occlusal contacts (median: 2.54; P=0.0004), marginal ridges (median: 0.5; P=0.0250) and interproximal contacts (median: 0.46; P=0.0305). The stability of the orthodontic results has proved to be similar for the two dental arches, as well as the effectiveness of the two retainers in maintaining the alignment of the anterior teeth. During 6 months in retention the occlusal changes were minimal and didn’t affect the stability of the orthodontic treatment in a clinically significant manner. The effectiveness of the upper Hawley retainer and the lower multi-stranded fixed retainer in maintaining the alignment of the anterior teeth was similar.

AI-assisted design and robotic wire bending of Hawley retainer

AI-assisted design and robotic wire bending of Hawley retainer

Evaluation of Orthodontic Retention Protocols and Their Impact on Treatment Stability: Insights from a Tertiary Care Study

ABSTRACT Context: The goals of orthodontic therapy are to provide stable treatment results and the best possible tooth alignment. Orthodontic retention regimens are essential for avoiding relapses after treatment; however, there is ongoing discussion on the best regimen. Methods: Orthodontic patients treated at a tertiary care center were the subject of a retrospective analysis. Information was gathered about follow-up evaluations, treatment techniques, patient demographics, and retention procedures. Relapse rates and occlusal characteristics were among the objective variables used to evaluate treatment stability. A statistical analysis evaluated the effectiveness of various retention strategies. Findings: When it came to preserving treatment stability, fixed retainers outperformed detachable appliances, Hawley retainers, and Essix retainers. The mean changes in occlusal parameters and relapse rates were greater for removable appliances, but the performance of Hawley and Essix retainers was moderate. Significant variations in retention techniques were verified by statistical analysis, with fixed retainers outperforming alternative detachable retainers and removable appliances. In conclusion, compared to alternative detachable retainers and removable equipment, fixed retainers are more successful in preserving treatment stability. Retention protocols, however, must to be established with each patient’s needs and treatment preferences in mind. The length of patient compliance and retention has a crucial role in determining the stability of therapy, underscoring the significance of patient education and continued monitoring. To improve long-term treatment results and optimize orthodontic retention techniques, further research and technical developments are required.

In vitro Evaluation of Various Retention Protocols in Sustaining Treatment Outcomes Following Orthodontic Therapy.

Orthodontic therapy aims at achieving stable treatment outcomes by ensuring retention of corrected tooth positions. Various retention protocols have been proposed, but their efficacy in sustaining treatment outcomes remains unclear. This in vitro study evaluated the effectiveness of different retention protocols in maintaining treatment outcomes following orthodontic therapy. Thirty extracted human premolars were subjected to simulated orthodontic movement and then divided into three groups: group A-Essix retainer, group B-Hawley retainer, and group C-bonded retainer. Retention efficacy was assessed through measurements of tooth movement over a period of 6 months using a digital caliper. The mean amount of mesial movement observed in group A was 0.5 mm (SD ± 0.1), in group B was 0.7 mm (SD ± 0.2), and in group C was 0.3 mm (SD ± 0.1). Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in retention efficacy among the three groups (P < 0.05). The bonded retainer demonstrated superior efficacy in sustaining treatment outcomes by minimizing post-orthodontic tooth movement compared to Essix and Hawley retainers. Thus, the bonded retainer may be considered a preferable option for retention following orthodontic therapy.

Manufacturing of PEEK orthodontic baseplate and 3D-printed alloy components from an intraoral scan.

This paper demonstrates a digital manufacturing technique of a removable orthodontic appliance from an intraoral scan. An intraoral scan was made for the maxillary and mandibular arches. 3Shape Orthodontics Appliance Designer produced the virtual Hawley retainer, consisting of alloy components (Adam Clasps and Fitted Labial bow) and a base plate. The base plate design was modified to adapt to inserting the alloy components, which were combined using cold-cured acrylic. The finished Hawley retainer was assessed intraorally. The described technique emphasizes the design specifications of digitally designed and manufactured removable orthodontic appliances. A combination of additive and subtractive techniques was successfully employed to manufacture the alloy components and base plate. This novel method provides an alternative approach to manufacturing removable appliances with computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technologies. The described process offers a precursor to digital manufacturing of other developed designs of dental appliances.

Dento-maxillary disharmony class I malocclusion with severe crowding, crooked canine, midline shifting and lip incompetence management: A case report

Objective: This case report aimed to provide treatment sequential DDM to meet the patient’s expectations. Case Report: Before starting the treatment, 2 first upper premolar needed to be extracted to gain space for severe anterior crowding teeth and 2 second lower molar because the teeth were not in good condition. After extraction, bracket placement with fixed appliance 0,22” MBT prescription and NiTi wires sequences were done for initial leveling. When it has already leveled, start for canine retraction using an elastomeric chain in wire SS 0,016x0,022-inch. Then, T-loop bends were used for anterior retraction in the same wire. Finishing detailing using SS 0,017x0,025-inch. The last one, Hawley Retainer, was used as a retainer. Results: The final results were as expected by the patient. She gained confidence through her new smile, and the orthodontist obtained what it needed for ideal occlusion except for Class I molar relationship because mesialization of the second lower mandibular tooth, and distalization of the anterior mandibular region but Class I canine were obtained, no rotation, no space, flat occlusal plane, and excellent crown angulation and inclination. Also, the patient’s lip became competent. Conclusion: This case concludes that the patient was happy with the overall treatment results and was satisfied with the pleasant and esthetic smile achieved at the end of the treatment.

Environmental sustainability of post-orthodontic dental retainers: a comparative life-cycle assessment of Hawley and Essix retainers.

Environmental sustainability has been brought into the limelight due to the global climate crisis. This crisis is driven by human activities and even the healthcare sector is no exception. Within dentistry, orthodontics is a large global market; hence, the use of post-orthodontic retainers has a significant environmental footprint. The aim of this study was to determine the environmental sustainability of post-orthodontic retention using Hawley and Essix retainers. A comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to compare the environmental impact of both retainers. All inputs and outputs were accounted for using the Ecoinvent database, v3.7.1, and openLCA software. Sixteen impact categories were used to determine their environmental burden. Of the 16 impact categories, the Hawley had a greater environmental burden than the Essix retainer in 12 categories. The Hawley's most significant contributors to its impact values are factory manufacturing and in-house production, with an average of 41.45% and 52.52%, respectively. For the Essix, the greatest contributor is factory manufacturing, with an average of 64.63%. However, when factoring in the lifespan of the retainers, the Essix would have a greater environmental impact than the Hawley retainer. This study employed a comparative LCA. There were also assumptions made, but these were supported by research. On the basis of the evidence gathered in this study, Hawley retainers are more environmentally sustainable than Essix retainers. These results would better enable clinicians to factor in the environmental impact and make informed decisions on the choice of retainer type.

Effectiveness of Different Retention Protocols in Preventing Posttreatment Relapse After Comprehensive Orthodontic Treatment.

After undergoing comprehensive orthodontic treatment, maintaining the achieved results and preventing relapse remains a significant concern. Various retention protocols have been proposed to address this issue, but their comparative effectiveness is not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different retention protocols in preventing posttreatment relapse following comprehensive orthodontic treatment. A sample of 150 orthodontic patients who had completed their treatment was included in the study. The patients were divided into three groups based on the retention protocol they received: Group A (Hawley retainers), Group B (Essix retainers), and Group C (permanent retainers). Patients' dental casts were obtained at the end of the treatment (T0) and six months after treatment (T1). Various measurements, including anterior and posterior occlusal changes, were recorded. The results revealed that Group C (permanent retainers) showed the least amount of relapse compared to Groups A and B. In Group C, the mean anterior relapse was 0.2 mm, while in Groups A and B, it was 1.0 mm and 0.8 mm, respectively. Similarly, the mean posterior relapse in Group C was 0.1 mm, whereas in Groups A and B, it was 0.8 mm and 0.6 mm, respectively. These findings indicate that permanent retainers were more effective in preventing relapse compared to removable retainers. In preventing posttreatment relapse after comprehensive orthodontic treatment, permanent retainers demonstrated superior effectiveness compared to Hawley and Essix retainers.

Different Perception on the Use of Hawley and Vacuum-formed Retainers Amongst Post-orthodontic Patients. Part 1: Discomfort and Aesthetic Perception

Backgrounds and Objectives The use of a retainer in the retention phase creates different perceptions amongst patients. However, the evidence regarding it is limited. This research was conducted to analyze the difference in patients’ perception of discomfort and aesthetics between Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Methods This study included 80 patients ( n per group = 40). Patients were invited to participate if they had completed their treatment for 6 months to 5 years and complied with the inclusion criteria. Seven questions were given to the patients using a digital-based questionnaire. Each was asked twice to address both maxillary and mandibular retainers. Responses were measured using the Visual Analogue Scale. Blinding was applied through data analysis. Results Statistically significant differences were found in the perception of the aesthetic, shape, and retainer color. Statistically significant differences were not found in the perception of comfort, pain, sharpness, pressure, presence of soft tissue cut, and confidence level with the retainer in place. No harm was observed to any patients during the study. Conclusions Vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) were more acceptable than Hawley retainers (HRs) regarding the retainer’s aesthetic, shape, and color. There were no significant differences between HRs and VFRs regarding patient perception of discomfort and confidence when using the retainer.

Blanket or tailored prescription of retainers in orthodontics: a questionnaire-based study.

To explore retainer protocols and how they are influenced by orthodontic presentation and the nature of occlusal correction. A prepiloted 45-item online questionnaire targeting orthodontists was developed. The questionnaire covered clinical preferences in terms of retainer type, fabrication, and follow-up during retention; the clinical indications for adjunctive surgical procedures; and the use of active designs to mitigate relapse in specific malocclusions. A total of 206 responses were obtained. The majority of the respondents prescribed maxillary removable and mandibular fixed retainers, with almost half (49.1%) reviewing patients for more than 1 year primarily in person (95.1%). The majority prescribed vacuum-formed (69.6%) 1-mm-thick (44.3%) retainers. Only 37.3% were aware of the type of material used, with polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolymer, followed by polypropylene, being the most common. Hawley retainers were preferred following nonsurgical maxillary expansion and with suboptimal interdigitation. A preference for clear retainers and/or fixed retainers was found in open-bite cases and deep-bite cases. Supracrestal fiberotomy was prescribed commonly (61.1%) for rotations greater than 90°. No retainer was rarely prescribed except after the correction of an anterior crossbite. Blanket prescription of orthodontic retention is common, with limited awareness of clear plastic retainer materials. Future trials evaluating the effectiveness of approaches for retainer prescription based on the presenting malocclusion would be timely.

Effects of three orthodontic retainers on periodontal pathogens and periodontal parameters

The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the changes in periodontal pathogens and periodontal status within 6 months of wearing three orthodontic retainers, namely, vacuum-formed retainer (VFR), Hawley retainer (HR), and lingual fixed retainer (LR). In total, 48 patients who underwent orthodontic treatment with ordinary metal brackets were divided into VFR, HR, and LR groups (n = 16 per group). Saliva samples were collected at the time of debonding (T0) and after 1 month (T1), 3 months (T2), and 6 months (T3). Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa) were quantitatively analyzed using real-time PCR. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PLI), and probing depth (PD) were measured at the four time points to evaluate changes in periodontal state. SPSS20.0 software was used to analyze the data, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300073704), the registration was retrospective. Compared to baseline (T0) values, Pg, Aa, GI, PLI, and PD were significantly decreased in all three groups 1 month after wearing the retainer (p < 0.05). Significant differences were observed in Aa at T3 among the three groups, whereby the HR group exhibited significantly better results compared to the VFR and LR groups (p < 0.05). Differences were found among the three groups’ Porphyromonas gingivalis at T3, and the HR group was significantly better than the VFR and LR groups (P < 0.05). From T1 to T2, GI, PLI, and PD of the three groups tended to be stable, however differences were observed at T3, with the PLI and PD of the HR group being the lowest among the three groups (p < 0.05). Regardless of the type of retainer used, the periodontal condition of patients was significantly improved after removal of the metal brackets. After 6 months of retainer use, the Hawley retainer was superior to vacuum-formed retainer and lingual fixed retainer with regard to Pg, Aa, and periodontal clinical parameters.

Pharyngeal Obturator Prosthesis Ideal for Orthodontic Appliances: A Case Series

(1) Background: Cleft lip and palate is the most common congenital malformation of the head and neck. After surgical closure, velopharyngeal dysfunction can arise, which has implications for phonation, sucking, swallowing, middle ear function, and interpersonal well-being. This case series aimed to present an adaptation of the conventional pharyngeal obturator design in order to allow its use with fixed orthodontic appliances. (2) Methods: A new custom-made pharyngeal obturator device was built in order to enable a correct function of the velopharyngeal valve. The fabrication of the plate was made by altering the conventional Hawley retainer, replacing the Adams hooks with 0.9 mm spherical hooks and removing the buccal arch. (3) Results: The new pharyngeal obturator design was used in six cleft patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The appliance was well tolerated and there was a slight improvement in auditory-perceptive evaluations. (4) Conclusions: The new pharyngeal bulb design proved to have good retention during fixed orthodontic treatment. Moreover, despite the short-term follow-up, it also showed a reduction in the severity of the hypernasality sentences.

Orthodontic Relapse after Fixed or Removable Retention Devices: A Systematic Review

Retention constitutes a fundamental phase of orthodontic treatment, of which the patient must be made aware from the outset. Retention, which can be fixed or movable, has the task of maintaining over time and stabilising the results obtained during treatment. This study assessed the efficacy of using removable restraints versus fixed solutions for maintaining long-term outcomes. A comprehensive search across major databases—Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus—used ‘relapse’ and ‘orthodontic’ as keywords to gather articles on relapse discussions. The primary focus was relapsed cases in post-fixed orthodontic therapy. Both fixed and removable retainer systems prove effective in preserving orthodontic achievements. While fixed devices require regular wire integrity checks, mobile devices require patient compliance, proper usage, and a recommended wear time. Studies indicate that fixed retainers are generally successful, with relapse rates varying based on the retainer type. Full-time use of removable devices surpasses night-only wear. Vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers offer similar effectiveness. Fixed retainers excel in long-term alignment stability, whereas removable ones have higher failure rates yet remain beneficial.

Posttreatment stability following therapy using passive self-ligating brackets: extraction vs. nonextraction.

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of lower premolar extraction on posttreatment stability one year following fixed orthodontic treatment with passive self-ligating brackets (Damon system, Ormco, Orange, CA, USA). All patients were treated with fixed orthodontic appliances using passive self-ligating brackets (Damon). For retention, removable Hawley retainers were used. Two groups of patients were included in the study. Each group consisted of 23patients: group Ex consisted of 10male and 13female patients (13.4 ± 1.6years old) with extraction of lower first premolars and group NonEx consisted of 11male and 12female patients (13.4 ± 3.9years old) without dental extractions. The patients' dental models and photographs were assessed at T0(pretreatment), T1(the end of active orthodontic treatment: 3.3 ± 1.0years in the Ex and 2.3 ± 0.8years in the NonEx group) and at T2(1year posttreatment). All lower casts were scanned and the following dental parameters were recorded and compared between the two groups: intercanine width (ICW), anterior arch width (AAW), intermolar width (IMW), Little's irregularity index (LII) and gingival recessions. An increase in ICW (group Ex: 1.20 ± 2.51 mm and group NonEx: 0.84 ± 1.48 mm) by the end of active treatment (T1; P < 0.05), as well as arelapse regarding the ICW (group Ex: -0.1 ± 0.47 mm and group NonEx: -67% ± 0.38 mm) one year post-treatment (T2) were recorded in the samples. Relapse in the non-extraction group was statistically and clinically significant, whereas ICW values remained relatively stable in the extraction group during the posttreatment period (T1-T2). The irregularity index decreased during treatment (group Ex: -8.79 ± 6.36 mm and group NonEx: -5.24 ± 2.99 mm) and relapsed in both groups (group Ex: 0.57 ± 90 mm and group NonEx: 0.27 ± 0.53). The rate of relapse in LII was correlated to the relapse rate of ICW. Areduction of IMW was recorded in the Ex group (-1.89 ± 1.82 mm) during active treatment (P < 0.05), which remained stable 1year posttreatment. AAW increased in both groups (group Ex: 2.77 ± 1.77 mm and group NonEx: 1.77 ± 2.04 mm) throughout active treatment and remained stable at T2. Intergroup comparison revealed that ICW remained stable 1year posttreatment in the Ex group, whereas high relapse of ICW was recorded in the NonEx group. Furthermore, risk of arelapse of LII appears to be higher in cases with arelapse of the ICW.

Is wear time of Hawley retainers measured with microsensors related to mandibular arch stability?

The aim of this study was to show apossible correlation between the mean wear time of Hawley retainers and long-term mandibular arch stability as assessed via wear time analysis with microsensors. This longitudinal retrospective study comprised 47subjects (mean age 16.30 ± 1.06years) having been treated with anonextraction protocol and presenting moderate crowding at pretreatment. For retention, all patients were instructed to use amandibular Hawley retainer for 12months, and wear time was documented every 3months during aposttreatment period of 6months using TheraMon software. These individuals were divided into two groups. Those who adhered to awear time equal to or more than 12 h/day (group1A; N = 17) and those who complied for less than 12 h/day (group2A; N = 30) were compared with respect to changes of the mandibular arch during the first 6months of retention. Furthermore, asubgroup of 28patients who completed a12-month follow-up period were again divided into two groups: the individuals in group1B (N = 12) adhered to awear time equal to or more than 8 h/day, while those in group2B (N = 16) complied for less than 8 h/day. Little's Irregularity Index, intercanine and intermolar widths, arch length, overjet, and overbite were measured on mandibular models taken at pretreatment (T0) and posttreatment (T1), as well as 6months (T2) and 12months (T3) after debonding. Pearson correlation test, independent samples t‑test, and Mann-WhitneyU test were used for statistical evaluation. From T1to T2, group1A and group2A showed asignificant relapse in intermolar width with adifference in the median value of 0.38 mm (p = 0.019). At the complete 12-month follow-up, the increase in Little's irregularity score was significantly greater in group2B (2.54 ± 1.29 mm) than in group1B (1.32 ± 1.03 mm; p = 0.012). The established wear time measurements showed significant negative correlations with the Little's irregularity score and overjet changes between T1 and T3 (p < 0.05). The results emphasized that the use of aretainer should not fall below alevel of at least 8 h/day.

Assessment of the effectiveness of two different orthodontic retention protocols.

The main goal of orthodontic retention is to keep the teeth in their corrected positions. Fixed or removable retainers are the most common types of retainers used during the retention phase. For the maxilla, various types of retainers have been described, including the vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers. Fixed retainers are used for the lower jaw.

Effect of bonded and removable retainers on occlusal settling after orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the effectiveness of bonded and removable retainers (the Hawley and Essix retainers) in terms of improving occlusal settling (occlusal contact points/areas) after orthodontic treatment. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Dental & Oral Sciences Source (DOSS), as well as SIGLE, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials along with cohort studies. Studies that reported occlusal contacts/areas during retention with fixed bonded and removable retainers were included. To assess the quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was utilized, whereas the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of cohort studies.We included 6 articles in our systematic review after scrutinizing 219 articles and eliminating the illegible ones based on duplication, titles, abstracts, and objectives. Bonded retainers (BRs) allowed faster and better posterior occlusal settling as compared to the Hawley retainer (HR). However, HR showed good occlusal settling in the anterior dental arch. The Essix retainer (ER) showed a decrease in occlusal contact during the retention phase. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between BRs and removable retainers. In conclusion, HR allowed better overall occlusal settling as compared to other retainers. However, BRs allowed faster settling in the posterior tooth region. The Essix retainer showed poor settling of occlusion. Overall, there is an insufficient number of high-quality RCTs to provide additional evidence, and further high-quality RCTs are needed.

Comparative Assessment of Patient’s Acceptability between Hawley and Vacuum-Formed Retainer in Patients Treated with Fixed Orthodontics Appliance

Objective: To compare the acceptability of Vacuum-formed Retainers and Hawley Retainers in two groups of fixed orthodontics patients over three months.&#x0D; Study Design: Quasi-experimental study.&#x0D; Place and Duration of Study: Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jan 2019 to Mar 2020.&#x0D; Methodology: Eighty-two Patients treated with fixed orthodontics appliances in the department of orthodontics of Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were recruited for the study. Patient acceptance was evaluated through a ten-question questionnaire regarding biting, fitting, hygiene, speech, swallowing, appearance, selfconfidence, gingival irritation, durability and comfort. Patients were evaluated on a 10cm long Visual analogue scale over three months in the post-orthodontics retention phase, after one week (T1), one month (T2) and three months (T3) of follow-up.&#x0D; Results: The vacuumed-formed retainer was significantly better in terms of speech (p&lt;0.01), appearance (p&lt;0.001), durability (p&lt;0.001), gingival irritation (p&lt;0.001), swallowing (p&lt;0.001), self-confidence, and comfort (p&lt;0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of fitting, hygiene and biting.&#x0D; Conclusion: The vacuumed-formed retainer was significantly better accepted in terms of speech, swallowing, appearance, self confidence, durability, gingival irritation and comfort.

Comparison of Efficiency of Bonded retainers and Vacuum formed retainers- A Randomized Clinical trial

Background: Major goal of orthodontic treatment is long term stability of the corrected teeth after orthodontic treatment. After orthodontic treatment there is always chance of relapse. To prevent relapse several appliances are available as a retention device such as bonded fixed retainers, vacuum formed retainers, removable Hawley retainer, Begg’s retainer. Now a days vacuum formed retainer has become more acceptable due to low cost, esthetic and easy fabrication. Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical success of bonded retainers with vacuumformed retainers, as far as keeping up the consequences of orthodontic treatment in the lower arch as long as a year after debond. Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) carried out at the department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka. In the study a total of 40 subjects who had fulfilled the selection criteria were randomly allocated to one of two groups, receiving either a vacuum-formed retainer or a bonded retainer for the mandibular arch. Qualification criteria was patients approaching debond after treatment with preadjusted edgewise fixed orthodontic appliance whose pretreatment records and study models were accessible to confirm pretreatment labial segment crowding or spacing and who had clinically acceptable alignment after treatment. The principle purpose was to research the clinical adequacy of the 2 kinds of retainers regarding changes in incisor irregularity at one year of preservation of treatment outcome. The following measurements were documented at each time point (6 and 12 months) with a digital caliper: Little’s irregularity index, intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length, extraction space opening. Result: The two groups were very much coordinated as for age, sex, clinical qualities, and treatment plans. Four patients did not attend in the follow up period and the study finished up in 36 patients. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups for changes in Little’s irregularity index and arch length. Vacuum-formed retainer group showed greater changes than the bonded retainer group (P value 0.035 and 0.022). There were also no statistically significant changes at any time for intercanine width and intermolar width. Conclusion: Some relapse is likely after fixed orthodontic treatment regardless of retainer choice, and this is negligible in many patients after debond. Bonded retainers have a superior capacity to hold the mandibular incisor arrangement after orthodontic treatment than vacuum-formed retainers. Trial registration: not done. Bangladesh Medical Res Counc Bull 2022; 48: 105-111