Retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers among specialist orthodontists

Meade, Maurice J; Millett, Declan T

doi:10.1179/1465313313y.0000000066

Cited by 66 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative literature search showed a lack of available literature on this topic. The number of retention check‐ups varies a lot in number and duration . Schneider et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of retention check-ups varies a lot in number and duration. [5][6][7][8]55,67,68 Schneider et al (2011) and others showed that failure of fixed retainers is highest directly after the debonding of orthodontics appliances. 28,69,70 The combination of increased mobility together with increased failure risk within the first month after debonding indicates the first retention check-up should occur within the first three months post-treatment.…”

Section: Cq2 Which Frequency Of Retention Check-ups Is Advisable Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention

Wouters

Lamberts

Kuijpers-Jagtman

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured AbstractObjectivesTo develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for orthodontic retention (OR).Materials and MethodsThe CPG was developed according to the AGREE II instrument and EBRO (Dutch methodology for evidence‐based guideline development). Reporting was done according the RIGHT statement. A Task Force developed clinical questions regarding OR. To answer these questions, a systematic literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was performed. Two independent researchers identified and selected studies, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB tool and rated quality of evidence using GRADE. The Task Force formulated considerations and recommendations after discussing the evidence. The concept CPG was sent for commentary to all relevant stakeholders.ResultOne systematic review—with 15 studies—met the inclusion criteria. In case of low evidence and lack of outcome measures, expert‐based considerations were developed. Over four meetings, the Task Force reached consensus on considerations and recommendations, after which the concept CPG was ready for the commentary phase. After processing the comments, the CPG was presented to the Dutch Association of Orthodontists, whereafter authorization followed.LimitationsThe paucity of evidence‐based studies concerning OR and the reporting of measurable patient outcomes.ConclusionThis CPG offers practitioner recommendations for best practice regarding OR, may reduce variation between practices and assists with patient aftercare. A carefully chosen retention procedure for individual patients, combined with clear information and communication between orthodontist, dentist and patient will contribute to long‐term maintenance of orthodontic treatment results.

show abstract

“…An alternative literature search showed a lack of available literature on this topic. The number of retention check‐ups varies a lot in number and duration . Schneider et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cq2 Which Frequency Of Retention Check-ups Is Advisable Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention

Wouters

Lamberts

Kuijpers-Jagtman

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) is one of the most common types used in daily orthodontic practice. VFRs are removable, clear, transparent, and thermoplastic retainers that were first developed by Kesling in 1945(Kesling, 1945Meade and Millett, 2013). The VFRs were fabricated from elastic polymers and were the first attempt to introduce such material in the field of orthodontics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of aging procedures on the molecular, biochemical, morphological, and mechanical properties of vacuum-formed retainers

Ahn

Lim

et al. 2015

Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…All previous studies have evaluated perceptions on different groups, which reduces the importance of the comparisons. 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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess, correlate, and compare users' perceptions and preference related to maxillary removable retainers. Volunteers were recruited to use four retainer types: conventional wrap-around (CWA), wrap-around with an anterior opening (OWA), "U" wrap-around (UWA), and clear thermoplastic retainer (CT). The main outcomes were the volunteers' perceptions, evaluated with a 100-mm visual analogue scale, and their preferred retainer. The retainers were used for 21 days each (washout intervals of 7 days). Nineteen volunteers (27 ± 4.53 years) were randomly divided into four groups that used the four retainers, but with a different sequence. Perceptions were evaluated immediately after the use of each retainer and the preference at the end of the research. Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman tests with post-hoc Tukey's test (intergroup comparisons), and Pearson and Spearman analyses (correlations between perceptions) were applied. The WA retainers did not significantly differ among themselves. The CT was rated significantly worse in speech (p ≤ 0.001), discomfort (p < 0.001), and occlusal interference (p < 0.001), and did not significantly differ from the others in esthetics. Users preferred significant more the WA retainers in comparison with the CT retainers. The occlusal interference caused by the CT was positively correlated to other perceptions, such as changes in speech and discomfort. WA retainers presented similar preference and perceptions, but were significantly better than the CT. The CT occlusal coverage appeared to be the primary cause of its rejection.

show abstract

Retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers among specialist orthodontists

Cited by 66 publications

References 22 publications

Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention

Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention

Effects of aging procedures on the molecular, biochemical, morphological, and mechanical properties of vacuum-formed retainers

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About