Steinnes Jeanett, Johnsen Gunn, Kerosuo Heidi
Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway; Public Dental Health Service Competence Centre of Northern Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway; Public Dental Health Service Competence Centre of Northern Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jun;151(6):1027-1033. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.10.032.
Our aim was to evaluate the stability of orthodontic treatment outcome and retention status 7 or more years after active treatment in relation to posttreatment or postretention time, type of retention appliance, and duration of retainer use.
The subjects were former patients who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances from 2000 to 2007. The pretreatment eligibility criteria were anterior crowding of 4 mm or more in the maxilla or the mandible and Angle Class I or Class II sagittal molar relationship. Acceptable pretreatment and posttreatment dental casts were required. A total of 67 patients participated, 24 men and 43 women, with a mean age of 24.7 years (range, 20.0-50.0 years). All participants had a follow-up clinical examination, which included impressions for follow-up casts, and each completed a questionnaire. Data were obtained from pretreatment, posttreatment, and follow-up (T2) casts as well as from the patients' dental records. Treatment stability was evaluated with the peer assessment rating (PAR) index and Little's irregularity index.
The participation rate was 64%. The average posttreatment time was 8.5 years (range, 7.0-11.0). All participants had received a retainer in the mandible, maxilla, or both after active treatment. At T2, the PAR score showed a mean relapse of 14%. The majority (78%) of participants still had a fixed retainer at T2 (retainer group), and 22% had been out of retention for at least 1 year (postretention group). The relapse according to the PAR did not differ significantly between participants with and without a retainer at T2. From posttreatment to T2, the irregularity of the mandibular incisors increased almost 3 times more in participants with no retainer in the mandible compared with those with an intact retainer at T2 (P = 0.001). In the maxilla, no corresponding difference was found.
Our results suggest that occlusal relapse can be expected after active orthodontic treatment irrespective of long-term use of fixed retainers. Fixed canine-to-canine retainers seem effective to maintain mandibular incisor alignment, whereas in the maxilla a fixed retainer may not make any difference in the long term.
我们的目的是评估在积极治疗7年或更长时间后,正畸治疗结果和保持状态的稳定性,这与治疗后或保持后的时间、保持器类型以及保持器使用时长有关。
研究对象为2000年至2007年期间使用固定矫治器完成正畸治疗的既往患者。治疗前入选标准为上颌或下颌前牙拥挤4毫米或更多,以及安氏I类或II类磨牙矢状关系。需要有可接受的治疗前和治疗后牙模。共有67名患者参与,其中男性24名,女性43名,平均年龄24.7岁(范围20.0 - 50.0岁)。所有参与者均接受了随访临床检查,包括制取随访牙模,并且每人都完成了一份问卷。数据来自治疗前、治疗后和随访(T2)牙模以及患者的牙科记录。使用同侪评估评分(PAR)指数和利特尔不规则指数评估治疗稳定性。
参与率为64%。治疗后的平均时间为8.5年(范围7.0 - 11.0)。所有参与者在积极治疗后均在下颌、上颌或两者都佩戴了保持器。在T2时,PAR评分显示平均复发率为14%。大多数(78%)参与者在T2时仍佩戴固定保持器(保持器组),22%的参与者已停止保持至少1年(保持后组)。在T2时,有保持器和无保持器的参与者之间,根据PAR得出的复发情况无显著差异。从治疗后到T2,与T2时下颌保持器完整的参与者相比,下颌无保持器的参与者下颌切牙的不规则度增加了近3倍(P = 0.001)。在上颌未发现相应差异。
我们的结果表明,无论长期使用固定保持器与否,正畸积极治疗后都可能出现咬合复发。固定的尖牙间保持器似乎对维持下颌切牙排列有效,而在上颌,从长期来看固定保持器可能没有任何作用。