Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: A comparison between glass fiber0reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers

被引:37
作者
Bolla, Eugenio [1 ]
Cozzani, Mauro [2 ]
Doldo, Tiziana [3 ]
Fontana, Mattia [2 ]
机构
[1] Via XX Settembre 20, I-16121 Genoa, Italy
[2] Via Fontevivo 21 N, I-19125 La Spezia, Italy
[3] Policlin Le Scotte, I-53100 Siena, Italy
关键词
Glass fiber reinforced retention; Multistranded bonded retention; Detachment rate; Breakage rate; Long-term outcomes;
D O I
10.1016/j.ortho.2011.12.005
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare bond failure and breakage rates of two types of bonded lingual orthodontic retainers (GFR and .0175" multistranded stainless steel wire [MST]) after a 6-year retention period. Subjects and methods: Eighty-five young adults were randomly divided into two groups: 40 subjects received 48 GFR retainers (14 maxillary and 34 mandibular retainers), and 45 subjects received 50 MST retainers (18 maxillary and 32 mandibular retainers). A Fisher's exact test was performed in order to identify significant differences in the percentage of detachment and breakage of the retainers between the groups. Results: The maxillary detachment rates were 21.42% for the GFR group and 22.22% for the MST group; the mandibular detachment rates were 11.76% for the GFR group and 15.62% for the MST group. The maxillary breakage rates were 7.14% for the GFR group and 16.66% for the MST group; the mandibular breakage rates were 8.82% for the GFR group and 15.62% for the MST group. The differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: GFR and multistranded stainless steel retainers showed similar results in terms of bond failure and breakage after 6 years of retention. The use of GFR retainers as a retention strategy should not be discouraged and could be considered a viable esthetic alternative to stainless steel wire retainers. (C) 2011 CEO. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved
引用
收藏
页码:16 / 28
页数:13
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers
    Artun, J
    Spadafora, AT
    Shapiro, PA
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 1997, 19 (05) : 501 - 509
  • [2] BONDED ORTHODONTIC RETAINERS - A REVIEW
    BEARN, DR
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1995, 108 (02) : 207 - 213
  • [3] Shear modulus of 5 flowable composites to the EverStick Ortho fiber-reinforced composite retainer: An in-vitro study
    Brauchli, Lorenz
    Pintus, Stefano
    Steineck, Markus
    Luethy, Heinz
    Wichelhause, Andrea
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2009, 135 (01) : 54 - 58
  • [4] Brauchli Lorenz M, 2006, J Clin Orthod, V40, P359
  • [5] Burstone C.J., 2000, J CLIN ORTHOD, V34, P271
  • [6] Force levels of fiber-reinforced composites and orthodontic stainless steel wires: A 3-point bending test
    Cacciafesta, Vittorio
    Sfondrini, Maria Francesca
    Lena, Alessandro
    Scribante, Andrea
    Vallittu, Pekka K.
    Lassila, Lippo V.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2008, 133 (03) : 410 - 413
  • [7] TENSION TEST AS A MEANS OF CHARACTERIZING FIBER COMPOSITE FAILURE MODE
    CRAIG, WH
    COURTNEY, TH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE, 1975, 10 (07) : 1119 - 1126
  • [8] Dahl E H, 1991, J Clin Orthod, V25, P619
  • [9] DIAMOND DA, 1987, J CLIN ORTHOD, V21, P182
  • [10] Influence of fiber type and wetting agent on the flexural properties of an indirect fiber reinforced composite
    Ellakwa, AE
    Shortall, AC
    Marquis, PM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2002, 88 (05) : 485 - 490