Periodontal parameters of two types of 3 x 3 orthodontic retainer: a longitudinal study

Larissa A Ferreira, Diogo M Sapata, Maria G A Provenzano, Roberto M Hayacibara, Adilson L Ramos, Larissa A Ferreira, Diogo M Sapata, Maria G A Provenzano, Roberto M Hayacibara, Adilson L Ramos

Abstract

Introduction: bonded fixed retainers are often used to stabilize the results obtained with the orthodontic treatment. It is important that they do not prejudice dental health, as they will be used for a long period.

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare periodontal indexes between two types of bonded fixed retainers, conventional 3 x 3 plain retainer (0.8-mm orthodontic wire, bonded to the canines only) and a manufactured braided retainer (0.2 x 0.7-mm stainless steel wire, bonded to all anterior teeth) after use.

Methods: a test group of 15 volunteers (aged from 18 to 25 years) used both the conventional retainer and braided retainer for six months. A randomized longitudinal study design, with a two week washout interval, was applied. The dental plaque index, gingival index and dental calculus index were evaluated. Furthermore, the calculus accumulated along the retainer wire was measured and all patients answered a questionnaire about the use, acceptance and comfort of both types of retainers.

Results: the scores for plaque and gingival indexes were higher for the braided retainer (p< 0.05) on the lingual and proximal surfaces. The same occurred with the calculus index on the lingual surfaces (p< 0.05). The calculus index along wire was higher for the braided retainer (p< 0.05). All patients preferred the conventional retainer, and said that it was also more comfortable to use.

Conclusion: it was concluded that the conventional retainer showed better periodontal indexes than the braided type.

Figures

Figure 1. Research flow diagram: (a) Baseline…
Figure 1. Research flow diagram: (a) Baseline - scaling and dental prophylaxis 15 days before starting use of the retainer. On day zero, the periodontal indexes had to be normal. (b) Use of conventional retainer / OrthoFlex Tech - for 6 months. Readout of indexes on conclusion. (c) Washout - after removal of the first retainer used, removal of residual resin, dental polishing, and waiting period of 15 days for normalization of the indexes. (d) Use of OrthoFlex Tech / conventional retainer - for 6 months. Readout of indexes on conclusion.
Figure 2. Conventional retainer bonded to mandibular…
Figure 2. Conventional retainer bonded to mandibular canines.
Figure 3. Ortho-FlexTech retainer bonded to all…
Figure 3. Ortho-FlexTech retainer bonded to all the mandibular anterior teeth.

References

    1. Artun J. Caries and periodontal reactions associated with long-term use of different types of bonded lingual retainers. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(2):112–118.
    1. Cerny R. Permanent fixed lingual retention. J Clin Orthod. 2001;35:728–732.
    1. Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1991;25(10):619–630.
    1. Zachrisson BU. Aspectos importantes da estabilidade a longo prazo. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial. 1997;3(4):90–121.
    1. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108(2):207–213.
    1. Heier EE. Periodontal implications of bonded versus removable retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(6):607–616.
    1. Bicalho JS, Bicalho KT. Descrição do método de contenção fixa com livre acesso do fio dental. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial. 2001;6(5):97–104.
    1. Lew KK. Direct-bonded lingual retainer. J Clin Orthod. 1989;23(7):490–491.
    1. Shirasu BK, Hayacibara RM, Ramos AL. Comparação de parâmetros periodontais após utilização de contenção convencional 3x3 plana e contenção modificada. Dental Press J Orthod. 2007;12(1):41–47.
    1. Lukianchuki MA, Hayacibara RM, Ramos AL. Comparison of periodontal parameters after the use of orthodontic multi-stranded wire retainers and modified retainers. Dental Press J Othod. 2011;16(4):44.e1–44.e7.
    1. Normando DC, Capelozza LA., Filho Method to re-treat the relapse of dental misalignment. Dental Press J Orthod. 2011;16(5):48–53.
    1. 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(3):406–415.
    1. Booth FA, Edelman JM, Proffit WR. Twenty-year follow-up of patients with permanently bonded mandibular canine-to-canine retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(1):70–76.
    1. Schütz-Fransson U, Lindsten R, Bjerklin K, Bondemark L. Twelve-year follow-up of mandibular incisor stability Comparison between two bonded lingual orthodontic retainers. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(2):200–208.
    1. Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19(5):501–509.
    1. Rody WJ, Jr, Elmaraghy S, McNeight AM, Chamberlain CA, Antal D, Dolce Effects of different orthodontic retention protocols on the periodontal health of mandibular incisors. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2016;19(4):198–208.
    1. Katsaros C, Livas C, Renkema AM. Unexpected complications of bonded mandibular lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(6):838–841.
    1. Kucera J, Marek I. Unexpected complications associated with mandibular fixed retainers a retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(2):202–211.
    1. Farret MM, Farret MM, Vieira GL, Assaf JH, Lima EM. Orthodontic treatment of a mandibular incisor fenestration resulting from a broken retainer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(2):332–337.
    1. Egli F, Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients Comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 2-year follow-up of a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(1):15–27.
    1. Addy M, Moran JM. Clinical indications for the use of chemical adjuncts to plaque control. Periodontol 2000. 1997;15:52–54.
    1. Lang NP, Mombelli A, Attström R. Lindhe J, Lang NP, Karring T. Tratado de periodontia clínica e implantologia oral. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2005. Placa e cálculo dentais; pp. 81–104.
    1. Westerlund A, Oikonomou C, Ransjö M, Ekestubbe A, Bresin A, Lund H. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of the long-term effects of orthodontic retainers on marginal bone levels. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(1):74–81.
    1. Ramos AL. Eu penso assim Contenções inferiores. Rev Clín Ortod Dental Press. 2016 Dez- 2017;15(6):34–41.
    1. Bjering R, Sandvik L, Midtbø M, Vandevska-Radunovic V. Stability of anterior tooth alignment 10 years out of retention. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(4):275–283.
    1. Moslemzadeh SH, Sohrabi A, Rafighi A, Farshidnia S. Comparison of stability of the results of orthodontic treatment and gingival health between Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers J Contemp Dent. Pract. 2018;19(4):443–449.
    1. Ramazanzadeh B, Ahrari F, Hosseini ZS. The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(3):e224–e231.
    1. Madurantakam P, Kumar S. Fixed and removable orthodontic retainers and periodontal health. Evid Based Dent. 2017;18(4):103–104.
    1. Çifter M, Gümrü Çelikel AD, Çekici A. Effects of vacuum-formed retainers on periodontal status and their retention efficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;152(6):830–835.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться