Oral Health Prev Dent. 2020 Jun 8;18(1):633-641. doi: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a44939.
Kocher KE, Gebistorf MC, Pandis N, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C.
PURPOSE:
This retrospective cohort study investigated the long-term effectiveness of one type of maxillar and 2 types of mandibular fixed lingual retainers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Eighty orthodontic patients in retention for 10-15 years were included. Irregularity index, intercanine width, overjet (OJ) and overbite (OB) were measured on plaster models at 3 occasions: (T1)pre-treatment, (T2) post-treatment and (T3) 10-15 years post-treatment. Analyses assessed the effect of the retainer type and time on mandibular irregularity, intercanine width and retainer failure.
RESULTS:
In the mandible, the irregularity index increased (0.43 mm) between T2 and T3 for the 0.027″ β-titanium (TMA) retainers bonded to canines only while it was stable (-0.02 mm) for the 0.016″ x 0.022″ braided stainless steel retainers (SS6) bonded to all six anterior teeth. The intercanine width was relatively stable in both groups during the entire observation period. In the maxilla, theirregularity index was stable between T2 and T3 (+0.07 mm). The intercanine width increased (+2.02 mm) during treatment T1-T2 and was stable (-0.02 mm) in the retention phase T2 to T3.
CONCLUSIONS:
In the mandible, SS6 retainers were slightly more effective in maintaining alignment compared to the TMA retainers. In the maxilla, the SS4 retainers without canine extensions were effective in maintaining alignment. All retainers were effective in maintaining the intercanine width.
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a44939
PMID: 32700517 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
