Forde Katherine, Storey Madeleine, Littlewood Simon J, Scott Paul, Luther Friedy, Kang Jing
Holywell House Orthodontics, Hinckley, Leicestershire, UK.
Department of Orthodontics, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, UK.
Eur J Orthod. 2018 Jul 27;40(4):387-398. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjx058.
There is a shortage of evidence on the best type of retainer.
Evaluate upper and lower bonded retainers (BRs) versus upper and lower vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) over 12 months, in terms of stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction.
Two-arm parallel group multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial.
Sixty consecutive patients completing fixed appliance therapy and requiring retainers were recruited from 3 hospital departments. They were randomly allocated to either upper and lower labial segment BRs (n = 30) or upper and lower full-arch VFRs (n = 30). Primary outcome was stability. Secondary outcomes were retainer survival and patient satisfaction. A random sequence of treatment allocation was computer-generated and implemented by sealing in sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes independently prepared in advance. Patients, operators and outcome could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention.
Thirty patients received BRs (median [Mdn] age 16 years, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 2) and 30 received VFRs (Mdn age 17 years, IQR = 4). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At 12 months, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences in post-treatment change of maxillary labial segment alignment (BR = 1.1 mm, IQR = 1.56, VFR = 0.76 mm, IQR = 1.55, P = 0.61); however, there was greater post-treatment change in the mandibular VFR group (BR = 0.77 mm, IQR = 1.46, VFR = 1.69mm, IQR = 2.00, P = 0.008). The difference in maxillary retainer survival rates were statistically non-significant, P = 0.34 (BR = 63.6%, 239.3 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 73.3%, 311.1 days, 95% CI = 278.3-344.29). The mandibular BR had a lower survival rate (P = 0.01) at 12 months (BR = 50%, 239.3 days 95% CI = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 80%, 324.9 days 95% CI = 295.4-354.4). More subjects with VFRs reported discomfort (P = 0.002) and speech difficulties (P = 0.004) but found them easier to clean than those with BRs (P = 0.001).
Results are after 1 year and we do not know how much the removable retainers were worn.
After 1 year, there is no evidence of a significant difference in stability or retainer survival in the maxilla. In the mandible, BRs are more effective at maintaining mandibular labial segment alignment, but have a higher failure rate. In comparison with patients wearing VFRs, patients wearing BRs reported that they caused less interference with speech, required less compliance to wear them, and were more comfortable to wear than VFRs. Patients found the BRs harder to keep clean.
The trail was not registered.
关于最佳保持器类型的证据不足。
在12个月内评估上下颌粘结式保持器(BRs)与上下颌真空成型保持器(VFRs)在稳定性、保持器留存率和患者满意度方面的差异。
双臂平行组多中心随机对照临床试验。
从3个医院科室招募了60例连续完成固定矫治器治疗并需要保持器的患者。他们被随机分配到上下唇段BRs组(n = 30)或上下全牙弓VFRs组(n = 30)。主要结局是稳定性。次要结局是保持器留存率和患者满意度。治疗分配的随机序列由计算机生成,并通过密封预先独立准备的顺序编号的不透明密封信封来实施。由于干预的性质,患者、操作者和结局无法设盲。
30例患者接受了BRs(年龄中位数[Mdn]16岁,四分位间距[IQR]=2),30例接受了VFRs(Mdn年龄17岁,IQR = 4)。两组的基线特征相似。在12个月时,上颌唇段排齐的治疗后变化在组间无统计学显著差异(BR = 1.1 mm,IQR = 1.56,VFR = 0.76 mm,IQR = 1.55,P = 0.61);然而,下颌VFR组的治疗后变化更大(BR = 0.77 mm,IQR = 1.46,VFR = 1.69mm,IQR = 2.00,P = 0.008)。上颌保持器留存率的差异无统计学意义,P = 0.34(BR = 63.6%,239.3天,95%置信区间[CI]=191.1 - 287.5,VFR = 73.3%,311.1天,95% CI = 278.3 - 344.29)。下颌BR在12个月时的留存率较低(P = 0.01)(BR = 50%,239.3天,95% CI = 191.1 - 287.5,VFR = 80%,324.9天,95% CI = 295.4 - 354.4)。更多佩戴VFRs的受试者报告有不适感(P = 0.002)和言语困难(P = 0.004),但发现它们比佩戴BRs的更容易清洁(P = 0.001)。
结果是1年后的,我们不知道可摘保持器的佩戴时长。
1年后,没有证据表明上颌在稳定性或保持器留存率方面存在显著差异。在下颌,BRs在维持下颌唇段排齐方面更有效,但失败率更高。与佩戴VFRs的患者相比,佩戴BRs的患者报告称它们对言语的干扰更小,佩戴时所需的依从性更低,且比VFRs更舒适。患者发现BRs更难保持清洁。
该试验未注册。