These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: No differences seen in outcomes between three different methods of orthodontic retention.
    Author: Walker M.
    Journal: Evid Based Dent; 2013 Sep; 14(3):81-2. PubMed ID: 24071676.
    Abstract:
    DESIGN: Three arm, parallel group, patient randomised trial. INTERVENTION: Seventy-five patients who had just completed a course of treatment with four premolar extractions and fixed straight wire appliances in both jaws (0.022 inch, MBT) having had no previous orthodontics, were randomised by participant ballot sampling. To be eligible they had to be in the permanent dentition, with space deficiencies in both jaws, normal skeletal and dentoalveolar sagittal, vertical and transverse relationships, Class I molars or 3mm anterior or posterior deviation. The three retention methods were: 1) removable vacuum-formed retainer with maxillary canine-to-canine and palatal coverage plus a mandibular canine-to-canine bonded retainer (GroupV-CTC); 2) an identical maxillary vacuum-formed retainer as in Group V-CTC plus stripping of mandibular anterior teeth (Group V-S); and 3) a prefabricated positioner covering all erupted teeth in both jaws (Group P). Patients were given appliances within one hour of debonding, which were worn more for the first than second year then discontinued. OUTCOME MEASURE: Dental casts were taken at four time points; before treatment, on removal of fixed appliances, after 12 months and 24 months of retention. Twenty randomly selected casts were measured by a single blinded assessor on two separate occasions, four weeks apart, using electronic digital callipers for inter-canine width; inter-molar width; arch length; overjet; and overbite. Height and estimated compliance was recorded at every visit. Successful retention using Little's Irregularity Index was considered to be <3.5mm. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled, and 69 completed, the trial. The mean active treatment time was 1.7 years and mean age was 14.4 years (SD 1.5) at start of retention. Although there were statistically significant differences for some of the parameters measured, there were no clinically significant differences between the three retention methods. All three were equally effective in retaining orthodontic treatment results and controlling relapse to a clinically significant level even when the results were adjusted for cooperation, initial crowding, growth and gender. The major part of relapse took place during the first year of retention. CONCLUSIONS: All three retention methods, V-CTC, V-S and P, retained the orthodontic treatment results and prevented relapse within clinically acceptable levels. Most relapse took place within the first year of retention and changes during the second year were small or negligible.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]