Orthodontic retainers: analysis of prescriptions sent to laboratories

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the most commonly fabricated orthodontic retainers. Methods: Information on the type and amount of maxillary and mandibular retainers produced in a three-month period was collected from six laboratories in the cities of São Paulo, Mauá and Guarulhos-Brazil. The retainers were grouped according to the total production. For the maxillary arch, the groups were: 1S-Begg retainer, 2S-Hawley retainer, 3S-transpalatal arch retainer, 4S-buccal resin-arch retainer and 5S-vacuum-formed retainer, Planas appliance, bonded lingual retainer and V-loop bonded lingual retainer. The groups relative to the mandibular arch were: 1I-3-3 bonded lingual retainer (canine to canine), 2I-Hawley retainer and V-loop bonded lingual retainer, 3I-Begg retainer, 4I-buccal resin-arch retainer, vacuum-formed retainer and Planas appliance. The data were presented in box plots. Groups were compared using the Student's-t test with Bonferroni correction. Results: The average of maxillary appliances fabricated ranged from 189.5 (1S) to 3.95 (5S). There were significant differences between groups 1S versus 5S and 2S versus 5S (p < 0.0001). Mean values for the mandibular retainers ranged from 55.3 (1I) to 4.2 (4I). Significant difference was observed between groups 2I and 4I (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: For the maxillary arch, the most requested retainers were Begg and Hawley retainers. Regarding the mandibular arch, bonded lingual retainers and Hawley retainer were the most frequent ones.

Orthodontist and periodontist’s knowledge, attitudes and aspects of clinical practice, regarding fixed lower orthodontic retainers

“…The preference of orthodontists for this type of retainer had already been reported in previous studies. 1 , 12 …”

“… 1 - 5 Orthodontists are more likely to indicate fixed retainers adapted to the lower arch, because of tooth instability in the region, which requires longer stabilization periods. 1 , 2 , 6 - 10 Fixed retainers are more aesthetic, do not depend on patient cooperation, 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 and may be individualized for the diagnosis and treatment performed. 2 , 13 , 14 In this context, the 3x3 fixed bar produced with straight wire bonded to the contralateral canines, 1 , 12 , 14 the twisted wire bonded to all lower anterior teeth, 1 , 9 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 and the modified fixed retainer 1 , 12 , 14 , 16 are the mostly used.…”

Users’ perceptions and preferences towards maxillary removable orthodontic retainers: a crossover randomized clinical trial

“…4,5,6,7,8,9,12,13,14,15,16,17 The most commonly used maxillary orthodontic retainers are removable, especially the Hawley plate, the WA, and the CT, whose preferences vary according to country or region. 2,3,16,18,19,20,21,22,23 The WA was selected for this study in relation to the Hawley plate, because the aim was to evaluate the influence of the different palatal acrylic designs, and the occlusal interference generated by the Hawley retaining clasps could impair this evaluation. Thinner maxillary removable retainers appear to generate less interference in speech.…”

A century of Hawley retainer

“…Hawley retainer is fabricated with acrylic resin that covers the palate, a stainless-steel bow contouring the labial aspect of maxillary anterior teeth, with U loops extending from distal surface of canines, and palatally embedding in the acrylic resin. 25 Besides, it incorporates clasps like Adams clasp, circumferential clasp or ballend clasp, for retention.…”