College of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Key Laboratory for Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education, Chongqing, China.
College of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Key Laboratory for Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences, Chongqing, China; Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education, Chongqing, China.
Int Orthod. 2020 Jun;18(2):225-236. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2020.02.008. Epub 2020 Mar 19.
This systematic review aims to summarize the effectiveness and patient compliances of Hawley retainer (HR) compared to vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) and provide the best clinical evidence related to the use of these retainers for maintaining tooth position following fixed orthodontic appliance so that orthodontists can decide which are the most appropriate methods and retainers to use for each individual patient.
We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Orthodontic journals, and relevant articles for eligible studies. Only RCTs studies were included; no restrictions on publication status or language were applied until May 20, 2019. We collected the study related to the effectiveness of these two retainers. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes, survival time, cost-effectiveness, occlusal contact, and adverse effect on gingival and speech articulation were also collected.
We finally included fifteen articles in the qualitative synthesis. No significant difference was observed in patients who had worn the retainers on a full-time or part-time, basis in both HR and VFR in terms of the change in arch widths and arch lengths. VFR appeared to be better at preventing relapses of incisor irregularity than HR. Patient satisfaction with VFR was higher than with HR, and there was no difference in survival rates for both types of retainers. In terms of cost-effectiveness, occlusal contacts, and gingival health, there were a few studies with limited evidence to compare these retainers. For speech articulation, VFR was less affected in comparison to HR.
We found that wearing VFR provides better relapse prevention of incisor irregularity than HR in both arches, indicating their usefulness in clinical practice. However, there is no evidence to show that the pattern of time duration wearing these retainers provides excellent stability. Overall, there are insufficient high-quality RCTs to provide additional evidence, and further high-quality RCTs research is needed.
本系统评价旨在总结 Hawley 保持器(HR)与真空成型保持器(VFR)相比的有效性和患者顺应性,并提供与使用这些保持器维持固定正畸矫治器后牙齿位置相关的最佳临床证据,以便正畸医生可以决定哪些方法和保持器最适合每个患者。
我们检索了 Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE、PubMed、Web of Science、正畸期刊和相关文章,以确定符合条件的研究。仅纳入 RCT 研究;直到 2019 年 5 月 20 日,没有对研究的发表状态或语言进行限制。我们收集了与这两种保持器效果相关的研究。此外,还收集了患者报告的结果、生存时间、成本效益、咬合接触以及对牙龈和言语发音的不良影响。
我们最终对 15 篇定性合成文章进行了分析。在 HR 和 VFR 两组中,无论全天佩戴还是部分时间佩戴,保持器对牙弓宽度和长度的变化均无显著差异。VFR 似乎比 HR 更能预防切牙不齐的复发。VFR 患者满意度高于 HR,两种保持器的生存率无差异。在成本效益、咬合接触和牙龈健康方面,有少数研究提供了有限的证据来比较这些保持器。对于言语发音,VFR 比 HR 的影响更小。
我们发现 VFR 在两个牙弓中均能更好地预防切牙不齐的复发,这表明它们在临床实践中有用。然而,没有证据表明佩戴这些保持器的时间模式能提供出色的稳定性。总体而言,缺乏高质量 RCT 研究来提供更多证据,需要进一步进行高质量 RCT 研究。