Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Relapse tendency after orthodontic correction of upper front teeth retained with a bonded retainer
2005 (English)In: The Angle Orthodontist, E-ISSN 1945-7103, Vol. 76, no 4, p. 570-576Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective:  To investigate the amount and pattern of relapse of maxillary front teeth previously retained with a bonded retainer.

Materials and methods:  The study group consisted of 135 study casts from 45 patients. Recordings from study models before treatment (T1), at debonding (T2), and 1 year after removal of the retainer (T3) were present. All patients had been treated with fixed edgewise appliances. The irregularity index (sum of contact point displacement [CPD]) and rotations of front teeth toward the raphe line were calculated at T1, T2, and T3.

Results:  The mean irregularity index at T1 was 10.1 (range 3.0-29.9, SD 5.4). At T2 it was 0.7 (range 0.0-2.1, SD 0.7), and at T3 it was 1.4 (range 0.0-5.1, SD 1.2). Fifty-five teeth in 42 patients were corrected more than 20 degrees between T1 and T2 (mean correction 31.4 degrees range 20.0-61.7), and mean relapse in this group was 7.3 degrees (range 0.0-20.5). Regarding alignment of the maxillary front teeth, the contact relationship between the laterals and centrals seems to be the most critical. A significant positive correlation was found between the amount of correction of incisor rotation and the magnitude of relapse but not between the amount of correction of CPD and the magnitude of relapse. Eighty-four percent of the overcorrected CPDs returned to a desired position.

Conclusions:  Minor or no relapse was noted at the 1-year follow-up.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2005. Vol. 76, no 4, p. 570-576
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-39492PubMedID: 16808561OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-39492DiVA, id: diva2:1520103
Available from: 2021-01-20 Created: 2021-01-20 Last updated: 2021-01-20Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Stability of aligned maxillary anterior teeth after orthodontic treatment: amount of changes with different retention methods and without retention
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Stability of aligned maxillary anterior teeth after orthodontic treatment: amount of changes with different retention methods and without retention
2021 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Well-aligned anterior teeth are the major reason for the patients seeking orthodontic treatment, and keeping teeth aligned and stable afterwards is a goal for the orthodontist and the patient. Relapse after treatment is a common problem, and it is defined as when teeth go back to their previous positions. Removable or fixed retainers have been used to avoid relapse after treatment. It has been common practice to use removable retention to retain anterior teeth in the maxilla. However, in recent decades, it has become increasingly common to retain with bonded retainers.

Almost all previous studies on retention devices in the maxilla were based on removable retainers. Consequently, there existed knowledge gaps and lack of short-term and long-term studies on the capability to maintain the stability of the maxillary anterior teeth with bonded retainers. Hence, the reason for the papers in this study. In addition, it is not known if retentionis needed in all orthodontic patients or if there are patients, based on their initial malocclusion and individual variations, who may not need retention after treatment.

The research questions addressed in this thesis thus originate from knowledgegaps and clinical needs concerning retention strategies after orthodontic treatments. To provide strong clinical evidence, randomised controlled trials (RCT) as well as intention to treat (ITT) methodology has been assessed. The results are expected to be beneficial for the patients who will be offered the most effective retention strategy for maxillary anterior teeth based on patients’ preferences.

In Paper I and II, 45 and 27 adolescents’ patients were collected from the Orthodontic Clinic in Mariestad, Sweden. At the time when Paper Iand II were conducted, there were no studies that had evaluated the longterm effect of bonded retainers in the maxilla. In two RCTs, Paper III and IV, 90 and 63 adolescents’ patients were collected from the Orthodontic Clinic in Växjö, Region Kronoberg, Sweden.

Paper I: The aim was to investigate the amount and pattern of relapse of maxillary anterior teeth previously retained with a bonded retainer.

Paper II: The aim was to investigate the amount and pattern of changes of maxillary anterior teeth seven years post-retention, which previously were retained with a bonded retainer.

Paper III: The aim was to evaluate post-treatment changes in the irregularity of the maxillary six anterior teeth and single tooth Contact Point Discrepancy (CPD) of three different retention methods.

Paper IV: The aim was to evaluate whether retention is needed after orthodontic treatment for impacted maxillary canines and with moderate pre-treatment irregularity in the maxilla.

Key findings in Paper I

• The contact relationship between the laterals and the centrals is the most unstable   contact. Canines are the most stable teeth.

• There was no difference in the relapse pattern between rotational displacements and labiolingual displacement.

Key findings in Paper II

• There was a strong correlation between irregularity at one- and seven-years post-retention. Stable cases one-year post-retention were stable and unstable cases deteriorated with time.

Key findings in Paper III

• All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity and all the changes found in the three groups were small and considered clinically insignificant. Thus, the null hypothesis was confirmed. All three methods can be recommended.

Key findings in Paper IV

• Changes between the retention and the non-retention group were statistically but not clinically significant. Since satisfactory clinical results one-year post-treatment were found in the non-retention group, retention does not appear always to be needed.

• Most of the changes occur within the first 10-week period after treatment with no retention.

Key conclusions and clinical implications

Both removable and bonded retainers are effective for holding teeth inposition and can be used for preventing the relapse. It can be enough toretain with bonded retainer 12-22 instead of 13-23. It might be possibleto avoid retention in selected cases in the short-term, but a longer evaluationperiod is needed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Malmö: Malmö universitet, 2021. p. 84
Series
Doctoral Dissertation in Odontology
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-39500 (URN)10.24834/isbn.9789178771523 (DOI)9789178771516 (ISBN)9789178771523 (ISBN)
Public defence
2021-02-12, Direktsänd, 09:15
Opponent
Note

Note: The papers are not included in the fulltext online

Available from: 2021-01-20 Created: 2021-01-20 Last updated: 2024-03-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

PubMed

Authority records

Naraghi, Sasan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Naraghi, Sasan
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 104 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf