Kumar Arun G, Bansal Anchal
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, College of Dental Science, Davangere, Karnataka, India.
Aust Orthod J. 2011 May;27(1):52-6.
Retainers vary in their effectiveness in maintaining teeth in their treated positions and in their acceptability by patients.
To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of Essix and Begg retainers.
Two hundred and twenty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive either upper and lower Essix or upper and lower Begg retainers. Subject acceptability was evaluated with seven questions related to chewing and biting, fit, speech, appearance, oral hygiene, comfort and maintenance recorded on a 1 O-point visual analogue scale. The effectiveness of the retainers to maintain alignment was assessed on study models taken on the day after debonding (T1), after three months retention (T2) and six months retention (T3) with the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and Irregularity Index (III). In addition to the upper and lower retainers, all subjects had bonded lower lingual retainers placed at the end of active treatment.
There were small, but statistically significant, deteriorations in the PAR scores in both groups at T2 and T3. The T2-T1 and T3-T1 differences between the groups were statistically significant (Begg > Essix), but the differences did not exceed 2 points. For the Irregularity Index, the T3-T1 difference was statistically significant (Begg > Essix), but clinically insignificant as the difference was only 0.25 points. Subjects preferred the Begg retainer for chewing and biting (p = 0.000), and liked the appearance (p = 0.000) and comfort (p = 0.05) of the Essix retainers. The subjects in both groups reported both retainers had an acceptable fit.
More subjects wearing Essix retainers considered their retainers were comfortable and had an acceptable appearance than subjects wearing Begg retainers, and more subjects with Begg retainers considered that their retainers were acceptable for biting and chewing than the subjects wearing Essix retainers. Both retainers allowed some relapse of teeth post-treatment, but the 6-month differences were small and may not be clinically significant.
保持器在将牙齿维持在治疗后的位置以及患者对其的接受程度方面存在差异。
比较艾斯克斯（Essix）保持器和贝格（Begg）保持器的有效性和可接受性。
224名患者被随机分配接受上下艾斯克斯保持器或上下贝格保持器。通过与咀嚼、咬合、贴合度、语音、外观、口腔卫生、舒适度和维护相关的7个问题对受试者的可接受性进行评估，这些问题记录在10分制的视觉模拟量表上。在拆除矫治器后的当天（T1）、保持3个月后（T2）和保持6个月后（T3），使用同等评估评分（PAR）和不整齐指数（III）对研究模型上保持器维持牙齿排列的有效性进行评估。除了上下保持器外，所有受试者在积极治疗结束时均佩戴了粘结式下舌侧保持器。
两组在T2和T3时PAR评分均有微小但具有统计学意义的恶化。两组之间T2 - T1和T3 - T1的差异具有统计学意义（贝格>艾斯克斯），但差异不超过2分。对于不整齐指数，T3 - T1的差异具有统计学意义（贝格>艾斯克斯），但在临床上不显著，因为差异仅为0.25分。受试者在咀嚼和咬合方面更喜欢贝格保持器（p = 0.000），而喜欢艾斯克斯保持器的外观（p = 0.000）和舒适度（p = 0.05）。两组受试者均报告两种保持器的贴合度均可接受。
与佩戴贝格保持器的受试者相比，更多佩戴艾斯克斯保持器的受试者认为他们的保持器舒适且外观可接受，而与佩戴艾斯克斯保持器的受试者相比，更多佩戴贝格保持器的受试者认为他们的保持器在咬合和咀嚼方面可接受。两种保持器在治疗后均允许牙齿出现一定程度的复发，但6个月时的差异较小，可能在临床上不显著。
