Comparison of survival time of Hawley and Vacuum-formed retainers in orthodontic patients– a randomized clinical trial

Seyed Hossein Moslemzadeh, Aydin Sohrabi, Ali Rafighi, Morteza Ghojazadeh, Somaieh Rahmanian

Abstract


Background: Maintaining the results of orthodontic treatment and keeping the teeth in the corrected position is a great challenge in orthodontics. This study aimed to compare the survival time of three types of retainers including Hawley, 1-mm Vacuum-Formed (VF), and 1.5-mm VF within 6-month period. Methods: In this randomized clinical study, 152 patients were allocated into three groups to receive one type of the retainers. They were visited 1, 3, and 6 months after retainer delivery and checked for breakage, loss, local perforation, and discoloration from the patient's and clinician's point of view as indicators of failure. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used as appropriated. Result: The results revealed that breakage was among the main reasons of failure of retainers within 6 months, which was statistically significantly different between Hawley and VF retainers, as well as between 1-mm and 1.5-mm VF retainers in the three intervals (p<0.05). Concerning the loss of retainer and discoloration from the clinician's point of view, there was no significant difference between the retainers in any interval (p>0.05). Assessing the discoloration from the patient's point of view revealed statistically significant differences between Hawley and VF retainers within the first month; however, the difference was not significant at the third and sixth months (p<0.05). The difference between the two thicknesses of VF retainer was not significant in any interval (p>0.05). By the end of the sixth month, some of the VF retainers had perforation; while, perforation was not observed in Hawley retainers. Conclusion: Considering the higher breakage rate of 1-mm VF, 1.5-mm VF seems the retainer if choice.

 


Keywords


survival time; retainer; Hawley retainer; Vacuum-formed retainer;

Full Text:

PDF

References


Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics,5th ed. Mosby Elsevier; 2013.p.611-14.

Case CS, Principles of retention in orthodontia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(4):352-61

Edman Tynelius G, Bondemark L, Lilja‐Karlander E. A randomized controlled trial of three orthodontic retention methods in Class I four premolar extraction cases–stability after 2 years in retention. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research. 2013;16(2):105-15.

Bibona K, Shroff B, Best AM, Lindauer SJ. Factors affecting orthodontists' management of the retention phase. Angle Orthodontist. 2013;84(2):225-30

Rinchuse DJ, Sheridan J. Orthodontic retention and stability: A clinical perspective. J Clin Orthod. 2007;41(3):125-32

Mai W, Meng H, Jiang Y, Huang C, Li M, Yuan K, et al. Comparison of vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(6):720-27

Demir A, Babacan H, Nalcacı R, Topcuoglu T. Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. K JO. 2012;42(5):255-62.

RowlandH, Hichens L, Williams A, Hills D, Killingback N, Ewings P, et al. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(6):730-37.

Pratt MC, Lindstrom AF. Patient compliance with orthodontic retainers in the postretention phase. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(2):196-1

Barlin S, Smith R, Reed R, Sandy J, Ireland AJ. A retrospective randomized double-blind comparison study of the effectiveness of Hawley vs Vacuum-formed retainers. Angle orthodontist. 2011;81(3):404-9

Sari Z, Uysal T, Basciftci FA, Inan O. Occlusal contact changes with removable and bonded retainers in a 1-year retention period. Angle Orthodontist. 2009;79(5):867-72.

Dincer M, Isik A. Effects of thermoplastic retainers on occlusal contacts. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(1):6-10.

Haydar B, Karabulut G, Özkan S, Aksoy AÜ, Ciğer S. Effects of retainers on the articulation of speech. Am J orthod dentofacial orthop. 1996;110(5):535-40.

Sauget E, Covell Jr DA, Boero RP, Lieber WS. Comparison of occlusal contacts with use of Hawley and clear overlay retainers. Angle Orthodontist. 1997;67(3):223-30

Littlewood SJ, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: A systematic review. JOrthod. 2006;33(3):205-12.

Littlewood SJ, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces (Review). The Cochrane Library. 2016;1

Sun J, Yu Y, Liu M, Chen L, Li H, Zhang L, et al. Survival Time Comparison between Hawley and Clear Overlay Retainers A Randomized Trial. Journal of dental research. 2011;90(10):1197-201.

Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A, Hollinghurst S, Ewings P, Clark S, et al. Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. The Eur J Orthod.2007;29(4):730-37

McDermott P, Millett D, Field D, Van Den Heuvel A, Erfida I. Lower incisor retention with fixed or vacuum-formed retainers. J Dent Res. 2008;87

Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Hartsfield JK, Fardo D, Nash DA. Evaluation of retention protocols among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(4):520-26




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.abcmed.17.05.01.02

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Bioscience and Clinical Medicine