© 1997 by European Orthodontic Society
A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers
Department of Orthodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
The present study was performed to test the tendency for plaque and calculus build-up along the wire of different types of bonded orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers, whether the presence of such retainers causes any damage to the teeth involved, the failure rate of the retainers, and any changes in incisor alignment during a 3-year period of retention. The four test groups received either retainers made of thick plain wire bonded only to the canines (n = 11); thick spiral wire bonded only to the canines (n = 13); thin, flexible spiral wire bonded to each tooth (n = 11); or removable retainers (n = 14). Accumulation of plaque and calculus along the gingival margin, gingival inflammation and probing attachment level were scored in lingual areas from canine to canine at the time of fixed appliance removal and again 3 years after retainer insertion. Incisor irregularity was measured on plaster models made at the same time periods. Accumulation of plaque and calculus and development of caries along the wire were scored at follow-up. Retainer failures were recorded whenever they occurred. The results revealed no intergroup differences in changes between baseline and follow-up examinations or status along the retainer wire for any of the variables. Gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation were scored less frequently after 3 years in retention than at the time of debonding. No signs of caries were seen adjacent to the wire. Failures were observed on one, four and three of the fixed retainer types, respectively. These patients showed a greater increase in incisor irregularity than the other patients.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Uysal, M. Ulker, A. Baysal, and S. Usumez Microleakage between composite-wire and composite-enamel interfaces of flexible spiral wire retainers. Part 2: comparison of amorphous calcium phosphate-containing adhesive with conventional lingual retainer composite Eur J Orthod, December 1, 2009; 31(6): 652 - 657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. E. Tacken, J. Cosyn, P. De Wilde, J. Aerts, E. Govaerts, and B. V. Vannet Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study Eur J Orthod, October 16, 2009; (2009) cjp100v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Hahn, J. Fricke, S. Fricke-Zech, A. Zapf, R. Gruber, and R. Sadat-Khonsari The use of a neodymium-iron-boron magnet device for positioning a multi-stranded wire retainer in lingual retention--a pilot study in humans Eur J Orthod, October 1, 2008; 30(5): 433 - 436. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Lie Sam Foek, M. Ozcan, G. J. Verkerke, A. Sandham, and P. U. Dijkstra Survival of flexible, braided, bonded stainless steel lingual retainers: a historic cohort study Eur J Orthod, April 1, 2008; 30(2): 199 - 204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Pandis, K. Vlahopoulos, P. Madianos, and T. Eliades Long-term periodontal status of patients with mandibular lingual fixed retention Eur J Orthod, October 1, 2007; 29(5): 471 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. C. Gomes, C. C. Varela, S. L. da Veiga, C. K. Rosing, and R. V. Oppermann Periodontal conditions in subjects following orthodontic therapy. A preliminary study Eur J Orthod, October 1, 2007; 29(5): 477 - 481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J. Littlewood, D. T. Millett, B. Doubleday, D. R. Bearn, and H. V. Worthington Orthodontic retention: A systematic review. J. Orthod., September 1, 2006; 33(3): 205 - 212. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. W. Lumsden, G. Saidler, and J. H. McColl Breakage Incidence with Direct Bonded Lingual Retainers J. Orthod., September 1, 1999; 26(3): 191 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|