Orthodontic Clinic, Public Dental Health, Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
Eur J Orthod. 2023 Feb 10;45(1):68-78. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjac043.
Retention after orthodontic treatment is still a challenge and more evidence about post-treatment stability and patients' perceptions of different retention strategies is needed.
This trial compares removable vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) with bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers (CTC) after 5 years of retention.
A single centre two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial.
This trial included 104 adolescent patients, randomized into two groups (computer-generated), using sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes. All patients were treated with fixed appliances in both jaws with and without tooth extractions. Patients in the intervention group received a VFR in the mandible (n = 52), and patients in the active comparator group received a CTC (n = 52). Both groups had a VFR in the maxilla. Dental casts at debond (T1), after 6 months (T2), after 18 months (T3), and after 5 years (T4) were digitized and analysed regarding Little's Irregularity Index (LII), overbite, overjet, arch length, and intercanine and intermolar width. The patients completed questionnaires at T1, T2, T3, and T4.
Post-treatment changes between T1 and T4 in both jaws were overall small. In the maxilla, LII increased significantly (median difference: 0.3 mm), equally in both groups. In the mandible, LII increased significantly in the group VFR/VFR (median difference: 0.6 mm) compared to group VFR/CTC (median difference: 0.1 mm). In both groups, overjet was stable, overbite increased, and arch lengths decreased continuously. Intercanine widths and intermolar width in the mandible remained stable, but intermolar width in the maxilla decreased significantly. No differences were found between groups. Regardless of retention strategy, patients were very satisfied with the treatment outcome and their retention appliances after 5 years.
It was not possible to perform blinded assessments of digital models at follow-up.
Post-treatment changes in both jaws were small. Anterior alignment in the mandible was more stable with a bonded CTC retainer compared to a removable VFR after 5 years of retention. Patients were equally satisfied with fixed and removable retention appliances.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03070444).
正畸治疗后的保持仍然是一个挑战,需要更多关于治疗后稳定性和患者对不同保持策略看法的证据。
本试验比较了正畸治疗后 5 年使用可摘式真空成型保持器(VFR)与黏结尖牙对尖牙保持器(CTC)的效果。
一项单中心、两臂平行组随机对照试验。
本试验纳入了 104 名青少年患者,采用连续编号、不透明、密封信封的方式进行分组(计算机生成)。所有患者均在上下颌使用固定矫治器治疗,部分患者拔牙。干预组患者下颌使用 VFR(n=52),对照组患者使用 CTC(n=52)。两组上颌均使用 VFR。在拆除矫治器时(T1)、6 个月后(T2)、18 个月后(T3)和 5 年后(T4)对牙模进行数字化处理,并分析 Little 不调指数(LII)、覆合、覆盖、牙弓长度以及尖牙间宽度和磨牙间宽度。患者在 T1、T2、T3 和 T4 时完成问卷调查。
上下颌在治疗后 T1 到 T4 期间的变化总体较小。在上颌,两组的 LII 均显著增加(中位数差异:0.3mm)。在下颌,VFR/VFR 组的 LII 显著增加(中位数差异:0.6mm),而 VFR/CTC 组的 LII 差异则较小(中位数差异:0.1mm)。两组的覆盖均保持稳定,覆合增加,牙弓长度持续减小。尖牙间宽度和下颌磨牙间宽度保持稳定,但上颌磨牙间宽度显著减小。组间无差异。无论采用何种保持策略,患者在 5 年后对治疗效果和保持器均非常满意。
在随访时无法对数字化模型进行盲法评估。
上下颌的治疗后变化较小。在 5 年的保持期后,与可摘式 VFR 相比,黏结 CTC 保持器更有利于保持下颌前牙的对齐。患者对固定和可摘保持器的满意度相当。
ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT03070444)。