Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Users' perceptions and preferences towards maxillary removable orthodontic retainers: a crossover randomized clinical trial
Lorenzoni, Diego Coelho; Henriques, José Fernando Castanha; Silva, Letícia Korb da; Alves, Arthur César de Medeiros; Berretin-Felix, Giédre; Janson, Guilherme.
  • Lorenzoni, Diego Coelho; Universidade de São Paulo. Bauru Dental School. Department of Orthodontics. Bauru. BR
  • Henriques, José Fernando Castanha; Universidade de São Paulo. Bauru Dental School. Department of Orthodontics. Bauru. BR
  • Silva, Letícia Korb da; Universidade de São Paulo. Bauru Dental School. Department of Speech-Language Pathology. Bauru. BR
  • Alves, Arthur César de Medeiros; Universidade de São Paulo. Bauru Dental School. Department of Orthodontics. Bauru. BR
  • Berretin-Felix, Giédre; Universidade de São Paulo. Bauru Dental School. Department of Speech-Language Pathology. Bauru. BR
  • Janson, Guilherme; Universidade de São Paulo. Bauru Dental School. Department of Orthodontics. Bauru. BR
Braz. oral res. (Online) ; 33: e078, 2019. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1019603
ABSTRACT
Abstract The aim of this study was to assess, correlate, and compare users' perceptions and preference related to maxillary removable retainers. Volunteers were recruited to use four retainer types conventional wrap-around (CWA), wrap-around with an anterior opening (OWA), "U" wrap-around (UWA), and clear thermoplastic retainer (CT). The main outcomes were the volunteers' perceptions, evaluated with a 100-mm visual analogue scale, and their preferred retainer. The retainers were used for 21 days each (washout intervals of 7 days). Nineteen volunteers (27 ± 4.53 years) were randomly divided into four groups that used the four retainers, but with a different sequence. Perceptions were evaluated immediately after the use of each retainer and the preference at the end of the research. Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman tests with post-hoc Tukey's test (intergroup comparisons), and Pearson and Spearman analyses (correlations between perceptions) were applied. The WA retainers did not significantly differ among themselves. The CT was rated significantly worse in speech (p ≤ 0.001), discomfort (p < 0.001), and occlusal interference (p < 0.001), and did not significantly differ from the others in esthetics. Users preferred significant more the WA retainers in comparison with the CT retainers. The occlusal interference caused by the CT was positively correlated to other perceptions, such as changes in speech and discomfort. WA retainers presented similar preference and perceptions, but were significantly better than the CT. The CT occlusal coverage appeared to be the primary cause of its rejection.
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Orthodontic Appliance Design / Orthodontic Retainers / Patient Preference Type of study: Controlled clinical trial Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Language: English Journal: Braz. oral res. (Online) Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2019 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Universidade de São Paulo/BR

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Orthodontic Appliance Design / Orthodontic Retainers / Patient Preference Type of study: Controlled clinical trial Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Language: English Journal: Braz. oral res. (Online) Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2019 Type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Institution/Affiliation country: Universidade de São Paulo/BR