Department of Family Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Centre for Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontic Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Selangor, Malaysia.
Prog Orthod. 2022 Aug 26;23(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00424-5.
To compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley retainers (HRs) and modified vacuum-formed retainers (mVFRs) with palatal coverage in maintaining transverse expansion throughout a 24-month retention period and to assess the subjects' perception toward the retainers.
The trial accomplished blinding only by the outcome assessor and data analyst. Data were collected from post-orthodontic treatment patients who met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five subjects were randomly allocated using a centralized randomization technique into either mVFR (n = 18) or HR group (n = 17). Dental casts of subjects were evaluated at debond (T0), 3-month (T1), 6-month (T2), 12-month (T3), and 24-month retention (T4). The intercanine width (ICW), interpremolar width (IPMW), interfirst molar mesiobuccal cusp width (IFMW1), and interfirst molar distobuccal cusp width (IFMW2) were compared between groups over time using Mixed ANOVA. A pilot-tested and validated questionnaire consisting of six items were given at T4. Subjects were instructed to rate their retainer in terms of fitting, speech, appearance, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort on a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
No statistically significant differences in arch width were found between the two groups at ICW (P = .83), IPMW (P = 0.63), IFMW1 (P = .22), and IFMW2 (P = .46) during the 24-month retention period. Also, no statistically significant differences were found between perception of both retainers in terms of fitting, speech, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort (P > .05) after 24-month wear. The appearance of mVFRs was rated significantly higher compared to HRs (P < .05).
HR and mVFR have similar clinical effectiveness for retention of transverse expansion cases in a 24-month retention period. Both retainers were perceived to be equal in terms of fitting, speech, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort. Subjects in the mVFRs group found their retainers to be significantly more esthetic than those in HRs group.
比较带腭侧覆盖的 Hawley 保持器 (HRs) 和改良真空成型保持器 (mVFRs) 在 24 个月保持期内维持横向扩张的临床效果，并评估患者对保持器的感知。
该试验仅通过结果评估者和数据分析师实现盲法。数据来自符合纳入标准的正畸治疗后患者。使用中心化随机化技术将 35 名患者随机分配至 mVFR 组 (n=18) 或 HR 组 (n=17)。在去粘接时 (T0)、3 个月 (T1)、6 个月 (T2)、12 个月 (T3) 和 24 个月保持期 (T4) 评估患者的牙模。使用混合方差分析比较两组间的尖牙间宽度 (ICW)、第一磨牙间宽度 (IPMW)、第一磨牙近中颊尖宽度 (IFMW1) 和第一磨牙远中颊尖宽度 (IFMW2) 随时间的变化。在 T4 时使用经过验证的问卷进行了一项试点研究，该问卷包含六个项目。患者被要求在 100mm 视觉模拟量表 (VAS) 上对保持器的贴合度、言语、外观、口腔卫生、耐用性和舒适度进行评分。
在 24 个月保持期内，两组在 ICW (P=0.83)、IPMW (P=0.63)、IFMW1 (P=0.22) 和 IFMW2 (P=0.46) 方面的弓宽均无统计学差异。此外，在 24 个月佩戴后，两种保持器在贴合度、言语、口腔卫生、耐用性和舒适度方面的感知也无统计学差异 (P>0.05)。mVFRs 的外观评分明显高于 HRs (P<0.05)。
HR 和 mVFR 在 24 个月保持期内对横向扩张病例的保持效果相似。两种保持器在贴合度、言语、口腔卫生、耐用性和舒适度方面的感知相同。mVFRs 组的患者认为他们的保持器明显比 HRs 组更美观。
