Bond failure rates for V-loop vs straight wire lingual retainers

Lee, Krista D.; Mills, Christine M.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.037

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The total survival rate was 90.7%. Similar to our study, Lee and Mills 19 reported a survival rate at 6 months of 87.6% with 0.0175-inch five-stranded stainless steel wire and Transbond LR composite resin. Taner and Aksu 16 reported a lower survival rate at 6 months of 62% with 0.016×0.022-inch, eight-braided stainless steel wire and Transbond LR composite resin.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Salehi et al 17 stated that flexible spiral retainers showed no statistically significant difference between the failure rates of the maxillary (36.5%) and mandibular (37.8%) arches. Lee and Mills 19 reported more bond failures in the maxilla (15.1% of 132 retainers) than in the mandible (10.8% of 185 retainers). In a clinical study by Dahl and Zachrisson, 12 there was a higher failure rate in the maxilla when compared to the mandible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A prospective clinical evaluation of fixed retainer failures

Baka¹,

Akın²

2017

Acta Odontologica Turcica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the failure rate of fixed lingual retainers and to determine the distribution of these failures over a 6-month period. MATERIALS AND METHOD: One hundred and fifty consecutively treated patients (92 females and 58 males, mean age of 14.89±1.08 years) who received canine-to-canine fixed lingual retainers after active orthodontic treatment were followed up for 6 months. A 0.0215-inch five-stranded wire (PentaOne, Masel Orthodontics) was bonded to the teeth using Transbond LR (3M Unitek) adhesive. The patients were examined in the 1st, 3rd, and 6th months after retention. The retainer failures during the 6-month observation period were registered, and statistically analyzed using a Cochran's Q test at a significance level of p<0.05. RESULTS: Retainer failures were seen in 14 patients, and the total failure rate was 9.3%. The highest failure rate was seen in the first month (p<0.05). The female patients exhibited a higher failure rate than the male patients (p<0.05), and three patients had repeated failures. The failure rate was higher in the mandible when compared with the maxilla (p<0.05), and in the right quadrant for both the maxilla and the mandible. The total survival rate was 90.7%. CONCLUSION: The result of this study revealed that higher number of failures occurred in the first month of fixed retention. Therefore, regular clinical controls are necessary to determine bonding failures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective clinical evaluation of fixed retainer failures

Baka¹,

Akın²

2017

Acta Odontologica Turcica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of orthodontists believed that stability could be achieved by a fixed lingual retainer. 2…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Innovative Lingual Retainer Wire Stabilizer

Mahendra

Mulakala

2020

J Indian Orthod Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the means of maintaining the incisor alignment after orthodontic treatment is by fixed lingual retainer. Over the decade’s various techniques have been advocated for bonding a lingual retainer wire. The most critical step to the orthodontist is stabilization of retainer wire in its stable position to prevent relapse. The purpose of this study is to introduce a custom-made device which is easy to fabricate and stabilizes the retainer wire to the contours of the palatal surface of the teeth without causing any iatrogenic damage to the adjacent soft tissues while bonding.

show abstract

“…Recurrence of crowding in the anterior region of the mandible after orthodontic treatment needs to be prevented, and it is necessary to use fixed lingual containment (Lee & Mills, 2009). In the literature there is an immense variety of devices described (Aasen & Espeland, 2005;Butler & Dowling, 2005;Gardner et al, 2003;Niegel, 1974;Norton, 1951) used for this purpose, with fixed devices being those of choice, as their use does do not depend on the patient's cooperation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Materials Used in Bonding 3x3 Lingual Retainer

Pithon

Ferraz

Oliveira

et al. 2013

Int. J. Odontostomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to evaluate which material and technique were the best for bonding 3x3 lingual retainer. One hundred and five bovine mandibular incisors were used, to which contention bars with a standardized size of 7 mm were bonded to the lingual surface. Initially all teeth received prophylaxis with pumice stone and water. After this they were randomly divided into seven groups, denominated and characterized as follows: Group (1) bars bonded with Transbond XT in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; (2) Tooth surface etching with self-etching agent Transbond (SEPT) followed by bonding with Transbond XT; (3) Bonding with Transbond Plus Color Change (TPCC) without adhesive; (4) Bonding with TPCC + SEPT; (5) Bonding with restorative composite Z100 + adhesive Prime Bond, (6) Z100 without adhesive and (7) Z100 + SEPT. Before bonding in Groups 1, 3, 5 and 6 the lingual surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 20 seconds, followed by washing and drying. After bonding the mechanical tests were performed in a Universal mechanical test machine. The values obtained were submitted to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and afterwards to the Tukey test (p<0.05). We observed absence of statistical differences among Groups 1, 2, 5 and 7 and among Groups 3, 4, 5 and 6 (p<0.05). Group 1 presented the highest bond strength value and Group 6 the lowest. It could be concluded that where bonding of lingual retainer is concerned; the best material to use is Transbond XT irrespective of the etching method, followed by composite Z100 etched with SEPT.

show abstract

Bond failure rates for V-loop vs straight wire lingual retainers

Cited by 19 publications

References 9 publications

A prospective clinical evaluation of fixed retainer failures

A prospective clinical evaluation of fixed retainer failures

An Innovative Lingual Retainer Wire Stabilizer

In vitro Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Materials Used in Bonding 3x3 Lingual Retainer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About