ABSTRACT
The aim of this trial was to compare two different orthodontic retention regimens: is night-only wear of upper and lower Hawley retainers for 1 year as effective as 6 months full-time followed by 6 months night-only wear? Sixty-seven consecutive patients attending for orthodontic debond were randomly allocated to wear upper and lower Hawley retainers either for 1 year night-only (group 1) or for 6 months full-time followed by 6 months night-only (group 2). In group 1, 41.2 per cent were males and 58.8 per cent were females and their mean age was 15.6 years [standard deviation (SD) 1.6 years]. In group 2, 24.2 per cent were males and 75.8 per cent were females and their mean age was 15.8 years (SD 1.2 years). Study models were taken at the start (T0) and end (T1) of treatment and 1 year post-debond (T2). Digital callipers were used to measure upper and lower labial segment irregularity using Little's index and upper and lower labial segment crowding. To evaluate differences between groups 1 and 2 t-tests were used. There were no statistically significant differences between the two retention regimens at T2 for labial segment irregularity or crowding (P > 0.05). Since both retention regimens were equally effective during the 1 year retention period, it would seem clinically acceptable to ask patients to wear their retainers at night only.
Subject(s)
Orthodontic Retainers , Adolescent , Child , Episode of Care , Female , Humans , Male , Malocclusion/therapy , Models, Dental , Night Care , Orthodontic Retainers/statistics & numerical data , Orthodontics, Corrective/methods , Prospective Studies , Sample Size , Secondary PreventionABSTRACT
AIM: To assess the effectiveness of canine lacebacks on the proclination of the upper incisors with reference to pre-treatment canine tip. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SAMPLE: Patients receiving upper and lower fixed appliances attending the orthodontic departments of five orthodontic treatment providers. Sixteen patients received canine lacebacks as part of their treatment and 19 patients did not have canine lacebacks. METHOD: Patients were randomly allocated to receive canine lacebacks or not receive canine lacebacks. Upper study models were collected at the initial archwire placement and then when the working 0.019 x 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was placed. The start canine angulation, change in upper incisor proclination/overjet, and any mesial movement of the upper first permanent molars during levelling and aligning was measured with a reflex metrograph. STATISTICS: The effect of the use of canine lacebacks on upper incisor proclination and mesial molar movement was assessed using Student t-tests. Regression analysis was used to evaluate any effect of the initial angulation of the canine. RESULTS: A mean incisor retroclination of 0.5 mm was observed in the canine lacebacks compared with a mean proclination of 0.36 mm when canine lacebacks were not used (P = 0.025). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for mesial movement of upper first molars (P = 0.99). If the canine was more distally inclined at the start of treatment, the incisors was more likely to procline, regardless of whether or not canine lacebacks were used (P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The effect of canine lacebacks on preventing upper incisor proclination at the start of treatment is in the order of 1 mm and their effect on mesial molar movement is insignificant. Canines lacebacks have similar effects that are independent of pre-treatment canine angulation.
