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: Failure Rates of Orthodontic Fixed Lingual Retainers bonded with Two Flowable Light-cured Adhesives: A Comparative Prospective Clinical Trial.
    Author: Talic NF.
    Journal: J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Aug 01; 17(8):630-4. PubMed ID: 27659078.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: This comparative prospective randomized clinical trial examined the in vivo failure rates of fixed mandibular and maxillary lingual retainers bonded with two light-cured flowable composites over 6 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients were divided into two groups on a 1:1 basis. Two hundred fixed lingual retainers were included, and their failures were followed for 6 months. One group (n = 50) received retainers bonded with a nano-hybrid composite based on nano-optimized technology (Tetric-N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent). Another group (n = 50) received retainers bonded with a low viscosity (LV) composite (Transbond Supreme LV, 3M Unitek). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the overall failure rates of mandibular retainers bonded with Transbond (8%) and those bonded with Tetric-N-Flow (18%). However, the odds ratio for failure using Tetric-N-flow was 2.52-fold greater than that of Transbond. The failure rate of maxillary retainers bonded with Transbond was higher (14%), but not significantly different, than that of maxillary retainers bonded with Tetric-N-flow (10%). There was no significant difference in the estimated mean survival times of the maxillary and mandibular retainers bonded with the two composites. CONCLUSION: Both types of composites tested in the current study can be used to bond fixed maxillary and mandibular lingual retainers, with low failure rates.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]