Department Of Orthodontics, Dr. Ishrat-Ul-Ebad Khan Institute Of Oral Health Sciences (DIKIOHS), Dow University Of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Present Address: Adam Plaza, flat no 103, opp: New Town Masjid, Gurumandir, Karachi, Pakistan.
BMC Oral Health. 2020 Jun 29;20(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01167-7.
Bonded retainers are widely used as they are esthetically pleasing, easily acceptable, provide greater stability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems. Though, fracture and bond failure are their shortcomings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the number of bond failures and type of failure pattern between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded retainers.
Total 60 subjects were recruited initially and were assessed for eligibility, out of which 6 were excluded and 2 were lost to follow up. They were randomly divided into two groups. Fiber reinforced composite (FRC) retainers were inserted in group 1 subjects while group 2 subjects received multistranded stainless steel (MSW) retainers. The subjects were recalled after every 3 months over a period of 1 year. Bond failure rate and failure pattern based on adhesive remnant index were evaluated at each visit. The bond failure rate and failure pattern were compared between the two retainers by using Chi-square test.
The bond failure rates were 42.94% for FRC retainer and 31.41% for MSW retainer. Hence, total number of bond failures in both retainers were 37.17%. The difference of bond failure between two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.012). Type "0" failure pattern was detected commonly with both types of retainers (p < 0.001).
Our findings indicate that multistranded stainless steel wire retainer is a superior option to be used for fixed lingual retention in mandibular arch as it exhibited lower bond failure as compared to fiber reinforced composite retainer. Adhesive failure is the most common type of bond failure observed with both types of fixed retainers.
ID NCT03881813 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ); March 19, 2019, retrospective registration.
由于粘结固位体美观、易于接受、提供更大的稳定性、无需患者配合，且不会引起软组织刺激和言语问题，因此被广泛应用。但其缺点是容易发生粘结失败。因此，本研究的目的是评估两种下颌尖牙-尖牙粘结保持器的粘结失败数量和失败模式类型。
最初共招募了 60 名受试者，并对其进行了资格评估，其中 6 名被排除，2 名失访。他们被随机分为两组。第一组受试者插入纤维增强复合材料（FRC）保持器，第二组受试者插入多股不锈钢丝（MSW）保持器。在 1 年的时间里，每 3 个月对受试者进行一次随访。每次就诊时，根据粘结残留指数评估粘结失败率和失败模式。使用卡方检验比较两种保持器的粘结失败率和失败模式。
FRC 保持器的粘结失败率为 42.94%，MSW 保持器的粘结失败率为 31.41%。因此，两种保持器的总粘结失败数为 37.17%。两组间的粘结失败差异具有统计学意义（p=0.012）。两种类型的保持器都常见“0”型失败模式（p<0.001）。
我们的研究结果表明，多股不锈钢丝保持器是下颌弓固定舌侧保持的首选，因为与纤维增强复合材料保持器相比，其粘结失败率较低。两种类型的固定保持器中观察到的最常见的粘结失败类型是粘结失败。
ID NCT03881813（https://clinicaltrials.gov/）；2019 年 3 月 19 日，回顾性注册。
