Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

The effect of different bonded retainer wires on tooth mobility immediately after orthodontic treatment

J. Kučera, I. Marek, SJ. Littlewood

. 2022 ; 44 (2) : 178-186. [pub] 20220330

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the immediate influence of four commonly used retainer wires on tooth mobility following orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients after orthodontic treatment were assigned to four study groups (n = 20 in each group). Groups were provided with directly bonded fixed retainers-0.0150′′ (group A), 0.0175′′ (group B), 0.016 × 0.022′′ (group C), and 0.0215′′ (group D). Tooth mobility was measured using the Periotest device at two times-after removal of fixed appliance (T1) and after bonding of the retainer (T2). Values of tooth mobility, 'Periotest values', were analysed between groups and compared with the physiologic tooth mobility in a control group of untreated patients (n = 65). Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U, Dunn's test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Tooth mobility after orthodontic treatment was significantly increased. While canines remained within normal range of tooth mobility, values for incisors increased on average to the first degree of tooth mobility (slight mobility). Logistic regression analysis identified age as a significant predictor for increased tooth mobility (P = 0.032) with odds ratio 1.065 (95% CI 1.005-1.128), with mobility increasing with age. After bonding of the retainer in all four groups, the tooth mobility was reduced to values which were not significantly different form normal physiological values found in the control group (P > 0.05). There were no differences in the amount of change or in tooth mobility values at T2 between the different types of bonded retainers. LIMITATIONS: Age of subjects in the control group was significantly higher than that in the study groups. An alternation method was used instead of randomization to distribute the four different types of retainers. CONCLUSIONS: All of the retainer wires were able to successfully reduce the increased tooth mobility caused by orthodontic treatment to normal levels. The values of tooth mobility after placement of retainers were within the range of physiologic tooth mobility.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22019094
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220804135344.0
007      
ta
008      
220720s2022 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/ejo/cjab038 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34374751
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Kučera, Josef $u Department of Orthodontics, Clinic of Dental Medicine, First Medical Faculty, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000344472467
245    14
$a The effect of different bonded retainer wires on tooth mobility immediately after orthodontic treatment / $c J. Kučera, I. Marek, SJ. Littlewood
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the immediate influence of four commonly used retainer wires on tooth mobility following orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients after orthodontic treatment were assigned to four study groups (n = 20 in each group). Groups were provided with directly bonded fixed retainers-0.0150′′ (group A), 0.0175′′ (group B), 0.016 × 0.022′′ (group C), and 0.0215′′ (group D). Tooth mobility was measured using the Periotest device at two times-after removal of fixed appliance (T1) and after bonding of the retainer (T2). Values of tooth mobility, 'Periotest values', were analysed between groups and compared with the physiologic tooth mobility in a control group of untreated patients (n = 65). Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U, Dunn's test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Tooth mobility after orthodontic treatment was significantly increased. While canines remained within normal range of tooth mobility, values for incisors increased on average to the first degree of tooth mobility (slight mobility). Logistic regression analysis identified age as a significant predictor for increased tooth mobility (P = 0.032) with odds ratio 1.065 (95% CI 1.005-1.128), with mobility increasing with age. After bonding of the retainer in all four groups, the tooth mobility was reduced to values which were not significantly different form normal physiological values found in the control group (P > 0.05). There were no differences in the amount of change or in tooth mobility values at T2 between the different types of bonded retainers. LIMITATIONS: Age of subjects in the control group was significantly higher than that in the study groups. An alternation method was used instead of randomization to distribute the four different types of retainers. CONCLUSIONS: All of the retainer wires were able to successfully reduce the increased tooth mobility caused by orthodontic treatment to normal levels. The values of tooth mobility after placement of retainers were within the range of physiologic tooth mobility.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a řezáky $7 D007180
650    _2
$a ortodontické přístroje - design $7 D016382
650    _2
$a fixní ortodontický aparát $7 D000077744
650    _2
$a ortodontické retainery $x škodlivé účinky $7 D018704
650    12
$a viklavost zubů $x etiologie $7 D014086
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Marek, Ivo $u Department of Orthodontics, Clinic of Dental Medicine, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Littlewood, Simon J $u Department of Orthodontics, St Luke's Hospital, Bradford, UK $1 https://orcid.org/0000000290926688
773    0_
$w MED00001634 $t European journal of orthodontics $x 1460-2210 $g Roč. 44, č. 2 (2022), s. 178-186
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34374751 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220720 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220804135338 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1822627 $s 1170337
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 44 $c 2 $d 178-186 $e 20220330 $i 1460-2210 $m European journal of orthodontics $n Eur J Orthod $x MED00001634
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220720

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...