Efficacy of thermoplastic retainers on maintaining the stability of transversal dimensions

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 36 Sayı: 2, 41 - 46, 01.05.2019

Nehir Canıgür Bavbek , Çağrı Türköz , Burcu Baloş Tuncer , Cumhur Tuncer Çağrı Ulusoy

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.499287

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to
evaluate the stability of transversal arch widths of upper and lower dental
arches following retention with thermoplastic retainers applied after non-extraction
fixed orthodontic treatment.

Materials and
Method: The material consisted of the pre-treatment (T1), post-treatment
(T2) and post-retention (T3) cephalometric data and the dental models of 21
patients (16 female, 5 male; average age 17.5 ± 1.2 years), who presented
skeletal Class 1 and dental Angle class I relationship with an optimal vertical
facial pattern, and small amount of crowding in both jaws. The patients had
been treated by non-extraction fixed orthodontic treatment followed by the
application of thermoplastic retainer with a mean retention period of 1 year. The
dental models were scanned and transferred to digital environment to measure
inter-canine, inter-premolar and inter-molar widths for both dental arches.
Repeated Measures ANOVA and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests were used for the
statistical analysis of the data having normal and non-normal distribution,
respectively (α=0.05).

Results: Statistically
significant differences were found in the upper inter-premolar width between
the T1-T2 periods (p<0.001), and between the T1-T3 periods (p<0.001), and in the lower inter-premolar
width, between the T1-T2 periods only (p<0.001). In none of the
arches and for none of the parameters a statistically significant difference
was found between the T2-T3 periods (p>0.05).

Conclusion:
Retention
with thermoplastic retainers was found to be effective in maintaining
transversal arch width in both arches after non-extraction fixed orthodontic
treatment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

orthodontic retainers, Orthodontic appliances, orthodontics, corrective

Termoplastik pekiştirme apareylerinin transversal boyutların stabilitesinin korunmasındaki etkinliklerinin değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Çekimsiz sabit ortodontik tedavi görmüş hastalarda
termoplastik apareyler ile yürütülen pekiştirme tedavisi sonunda alt ve üst
dental arklardaki transversal boyutların stabilitesinin değerlendirilmesi
amaçlandı.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çekimsiz sabit ortodontik tedavisi tamamlanmış ve termoplastik
aparey ile ortalama 1 yıllık pekiştirme dönemi kayıtları mevcut olan iskeletsel
Sınıf 1, dişsel Angle sınıf I, optimal dik yön büyüme paterni gösteren, alt ve
üst arkta hafif çapraşıklığı bulunan 21 hastanın (16 kız, 5 erkek; yaş ortalaması 17.5 ± 1.2 yıl) tedavi başı (T1), tedavi sonu
(T2) ve pekiştirme sonu (T3) lateral sefalometrik kayıtları ile dental modelleri
değerlendirmeye alındı. Dental modeller, masaüstü tarayıcı ile taranarak
dijital ortama aktarıldı. İnterkanin, interpremolar ve intermolar mesafeler her
iki çenede ölçüldü. İstatistiksel olarak, normal dağılım gösteren veriler Tekrarlı
Ölçümler İçin ANOVA testi ile, normal dağılım göstermeyen veriler ise Wilcoxon
Signed-Rank testi ile değerlendirildi (α=0.05).

Bulgular: İstatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklar üst çenede interpremolar
mesafe için T1-T2 dönemleri arasında (p<0.001) ve T1-T3 dönemleri arasında (p<0.001),
alt çenede ise interpremolar mesafe için yalnızca T1-T2 dönemleri arasında bulundu
(p<0.001). Hiçbir çenede, hiçbir parametre için T2-T3 dönemleri arasında
istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p>0.05).

Sonuç: Termoplastik
apareylerin çekimsiz sabit ortodontik tedavinin pekiştirme dönemi sonunda
transversal yöndeki tedavi sonuçlarını koruduğu bulundu.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ortodontik sabitleyici, Ortodonti, düzeltici, ortodontik gereçler, ortodontik sabitleyici

Kaynakça

• Lόpez-Areal L, Gandia JL. Relapse of incisor crowding: a visit to the Prince of Salina. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013;18:e356-61.
• Ramazanzadeh B, Anrari F, Hosseini ZS. The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10:e224-31.
• Jӓderberg S, Feldmann I, Engström C. Removable thermoplastic appliances as orthodontic retainers-a prospective study of different wear regimes. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:475-9.
• Demir A, Babacan H, Nalcacı R, Topcuoglu T. Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. Korean J Orthod 2012;42:255-62.
• Sheridan JJ, LeDoux W, McMinn R. Essix retainers:fabrication and supervision for permanent retention. J Clin Orthod 1993;27:37-45.
• Dinçer M, IsikAslan B. Effects of thermoplastic retainers on occlusal contacts. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:6-10.
• Hoybjerg AJ, Currier GF, Kadioglu O. Evaluation of 3 retention protocols using the American Board of Orthodontics cast and radiograph evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:16-22.
• O’Rourke N, Albeedh H, Sharma P, Johal A. Effectiveness of bonded and vacuum-formed retainers: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:406-15.
• Kaklamanos EG, Kourakou M, Kloukos D, Doulis I, Kavvadia S. Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review. Odontology 2017;105:237-47.
• Noroozi H, Djavid GE, Moeinzad H, Teimouri AP. Prediction of arch perimeter changes due to orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:601-7.
• Strang RHW. The fallacy of denture expansion as a treatment procedure. Angle Orthod 1949;19:12-7.
• Kahl-Nieke B, Fischbach H, Schwarze CW. Treatment and postretention changes in dental arch width dimensions- along term evaluation of influencing cofactors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:368-78.
• Edman Tynelius G, Bondemark L, Lilja-Karlander E. Evaluation of orthodontic treatment after 1 year of retention-a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:542-7.
• Dostalova T, Racek J, Tauferova E, Smutny V. Avearage arch widths and associated changes between initial, post-treatment and post-retention measurements. Braz Dent J 2004;15:204-8.
• Lindauer SJ, Shoff RC. Comparison of Essix and Hawley retainers. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:95-7.
• Rowland H, 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;132:730-7.
• Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: a systematic review. J Orthod 2006;33:205-12.
• Adkins MD, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Arch perimeter changes on rapid palatal expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:194-9.
• Germane N, Lindauer SJ, Rubenstein LK, Revere JH Jr, Isaacson RJ. Increase in arch perimeter due to orthodontic expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:421-7.
• Manzon L, Fratto G, Rossi E, Buccheri A. Periodontal health and compliance: a comparison between Essix and Hawley retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153:852-60.
• Gill DS, Naini FB, Jones A, Tredwin CJ. Part-time versus full-time retainer wear following fixed appliance therapy: a randomized prospective controlled trial. World J Orthod 2007;8:300-6.
• Kalha AS. Hawley or vacuum-formed retainers following orthodontic treatment? Evid Based Dent 2014;15:110-1.
• Al-Moghrabi D, Johal A, O'Rourke N, Donos N, Pandis N, Gonzales-Marin C, et al. Effects of fixed vs removable orthodontic retainers on stability and periodontal health: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:167-74.
• 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. Orthod Craniofac Res 2013;16:105-15.
• Profitt WR, Fields HW. Reorganisation of the periodontal and gingival tissues. In: Profitt WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, editors. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007. p. 618-9.
• Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Retention procedures for stabilizing tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;29:CD002283.
• Gurgel JA, Pinzan-Vercelino CRM, Leon-Salazar V. Maxillary and mandibular dentoalveolar expansion with an auxiliary beta-titanium arch. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:543-52.
• Regragui S, Boulif H, Rerhrhaye W. Study of the adaptability of preformed orthodontic arch wires to the average dental arch form of a Moroccan population. Int Orthod 2016;14:328-41.
• Atik E, Akarsu-Guven B, Kocadereli I, Ciger S. Evaluation of maxillary arch dimensional and inclination changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets using broad archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:830-7.