The Experts below are selected from a list of 423 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Analia Veitz Keenan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
No statistically significant results for two removable orthodontic Retainers.
Evidence-based Dentistry, 2012Co-Authors: Analia Veitz KeenanAbstract:Randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a Hawley Retainer (HR) or a clear overlay Retainer (COR). The HR was composed of a 2 mm-thick acrylic resin base plate, one-arm clasps with 0.9 mm-diameter stainless steel wire on the first molars, and a Hawley bow with 0.7 mm stainless steel wire. The COR was made from a 0.75 mm-thick thermoplastic material with the buccal edge paralleling the gingival margin, the lingual portion extending 4 to 5 mm beyond the lingual gingival margin. Distally the second molars were covered. Both groups of patients were required to wear the Retainers full-time, except during meals and were followed for one year. Retainer survival was the primary outcome. Small surface cracks were not considered as a breakage unless the Retainers could not be worn because of crack expansion. One hundred and twenty patients were randomised, 61 in the HR group, 59 in the COR group, nine patients (five in the HR group and four in the COR group) were lost to follow up. Fracture was the most often cited reason for breakage, followed by Retainer loss. No significant differences were seen in survival times between the two groups. Both Retainers tended to fracture, but the fracture locations were different. This analysis suggests that the survival times of the HRs and CORs were not statistically significantly different. Therefore, clinicians could advise their patients to wear either of the two Retainers without taking breakage into consideration.
-
No statistically significant results for two removable orthodontic Retainers
Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2012Co-Authors: Analia Veitz KeenanAbstract:Design Randomised controlled trial. Intervention Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a Hawley Retainer (HR) or a clear overlay Retainer (COR). The HR was composed of a 2 mm-thick acrylic resin base plate, one-arm clasps with 0.9 mm-diameter stainless steel wire on the first molars, and a Hawley bow with 0.7 mm stainless steel wire. The COR was made from a 0.75 mm-thick thermoplastic material with the buccal edge paralleling the gingival margin, the lingual portion extending 4 to 5 mm beyond the lingual gingival margin. Distally the second molars were covered. Both groups of patients were required to wear the Retainers full-time, except during meals and were followed for one year. Outcome measure Retainer survival was the primary outcome. Small surface cracks were not considered as a breakage unless the Retainers could not be worn because of crack expansion. Results One hundred and twenty patients were randomised, 61 in the HR group, 59 in the COR group, nine patients (five in the HR group and four in the COR group) were lost to follow up. Fracture was the most often cited reason for breakage, followed by Retainer loss. No significant differences were seen in survival times between the two groups. Both Retainers tended to fracture, but the fracture locations were different. Conclusions This analysis suggests that the survival times of the HRs and CORs were not statistically significantly different. Therefore, clinicians could advise their patients to wear either of the two Retainers without taking breakage into consideration.
A Sidlauskas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention
Progress in Orthodontics, 2017Co-Authors: Alvyda Andriekute, Arunas Vasiliauskas, A SidlauskasAbstract:Background The objectives of this study were to evaluate retention procedures and protocols which are used by the orthodontists in Lithuania and to identify commonly used types of dental Retainers. Methods One hundred seven questionnaires in total with 28 multiple-choice questions were sent to all members of the Lithuanian Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire was organized into eight sections representing specific information about socio-demographic status of the respondents, selection of a retention system, details of commonly used fixed and removable Retainers, the duration of the retention period, supervision of the Retainers, instructions for patients, and necessity of common retention guidelines. Results The overall response rate was 75.7%. All of the respondents prescribed Retainers after the orthodontic therapy. More than 40% of the respondents combined fixed and removable Retainers in different clinical situations, but the first-choice option after an expansion of the maxillary dental arch was the removable Retainer (54.3%); meanwhile, a fixed Retainer was used after a correction of any rotations of the mandibular anterior teeth (49.4%). The Hawley Retainer was preferred by 90.1% of the respondents for a maxillary dental arch, and 74.1% of them preferred it for a mandibular dental arch. The most preferable fixed Retainer was the Retainer bonded to all six anterior teeth (in the upper dental arch—by 71.6%; in the lower one—by 80.2%). There was no consensus on the duration of a retention period. Most of the orthodontists checked up Retainers three times during the first year (fixed ones—by 42.0%; removable ones—by 30.0%) and once per year after the 1-year retention period (fixed ones—by 44.4%; removable ones—by 40.7%). All orthodontists gave instructions for taking care of an orthodontic Retainer. It was observed that the orthodontists with less than 10 years of experience used a protocol based on the skills learned during their postgraduate studies, while orthodontists with more than 10 years of experience used retention procedures based on their orthodontic work practice ( p
Kathy A Russell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what type of orthodontic Retainer is best
Evidence-based Dentistry, 2004Co-Authors: Kathy A RussellAbstract:Data sources The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Embase were searched. Several journals were searched by hand (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (formerly American Journal of Orthodontics), Angle Orthodontist European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics (formerly British Journal of Orthodontics)). No language restrictions were applied. Authors of published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCT) were identified and contacted to identify further unpublished trials. The most recent search made was in December 2002. Study selection Only RCT were chosen for inclusion. Studies included children and adults who had Retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken after orthodontic treatment with braces to prevent relapse. The outcomes were how well the teeth were stabilised, survival of Retainers, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life. Data extraction and synthesis Screening of eligible studies, assessment of methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Because no two studies compared the same retention strategies (interventions), it was not possible to combine the results of any studies. Results Four trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. These trials all compared different interventions: circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with full-time removable Retainer versus a full-time removable Retainer alone; CSF combined with a nights-only removable Retainer versus a nights-only removable Retainer alone; removable Hawley Retainer versus a clear overlay Retainer and three types of fixed Retainers versus a removable Retainer. There was weak unreliable evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (P<0.001) and maxillary anterior segments (P<0.001) when the CSF was used, compared with when it was not used. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley Retainer than a clear overlay Retainer, after 3 months. The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. Conclusions There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on retention at present. There is an urgent need for high-quality RCT in this crucial area of orthodontic practice.
Alvyda Andriekute - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention
Progress in Orthodontics, 2017Co-Authors: Alvyda Andriekute, Arunas Vasiliauskas, A SidlauskasAbstract:Background The objectives of this study were to evaluate retention procedures and protocols which are used by the orthodontists in Lithuania and to identify commonly used types of dental Retainers. Methods One hundred seven questionnaires in total with 28 multiple-choice questions were sent to all members of the Lithuanian Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire was organized into eight sections representing specific information about socio-demographic status of the respondents, selection of a retention system, details of commonly used fixed and removable Retainers, the duration of the retention period, supervision of the Retainers, instructions for patients, and necessity of common retention guidelines. Results The overall response rate was 75.7%. All of the respondents prescribed Retainers after the orthodontic therapy. More than 40% of the respondents combined fixed and removable Retainers in different clinical situations, but the first-choice option after an expansion of the maxillary dental arch was the removable Retainer (54.3%); meanwhile, a fixed Retainer was used after a correction of any rotations of the mandibular anterior teeth (49.4%). The Hawley Retainer was preferred by 90.1% of the respondents for a maxillary dental arch, and 74.1% of them preferred it for a mandibular dental arch. The most preferable fixed Retainer was the Retainer bonded to all six anterior teeth (in the upper dental arch—by 71.6%; in the lower one—by 80.2%). There was no consensus on the duration of a retention period. Most of the orthodontists checked up Retainers three times during the first year (fixed ones—by 42.0%; removable ones—by 30.0%) and once per year after the 1-year retention period (fixed ones—by 44.4%; removable ones—by 40.7%). All orthodontists gave instructions for taking care of an orthodontic Retainer. It was observed that the orthodontists with less than 10 years of experience used a protocol based on the skills learned during their postgraduate studies, while orthodontists with more than 10 years of experience used retention procedures based on their orthodontic work practice ( p
Kathy Russell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
What type of orthodontic Retainer is best?
Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2004Co-Authors: Kathy RussellAbstract:Data sources The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Embase were searched. Several journals were searched by hand ( American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (formerly American Journal of Orthodontics ), Angle Orthodontist European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics (formerly British Journal of Orthodontics )). No language restrictions were applied. Authors of published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCT) were identified and contacted to identify further unpublished trials. The most recent search made was in December 2002. Study selection Only RCT were chosen for inclusion. Studies included children and adults who had Retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken after orthodontic treatment with braces to prevent relapse. The outcomes were how well the teeth were stabilised, survival of Retainers, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life. Data extraction and synthesis Screening of eligible studies, assessment of methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Because no two studies compared the same retention strategies (interventions), it was not possible to combine the results of any studies. Results Four trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. These trials all compared different interventions: circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with full-time removable Retainer versus a full-time removable Retainer alone; CSF combined with a nights-only removable Retainer versus a nights-only removable Retainer alone; removable Hawley Retainer versus a clear overlay Retainer and three types of fixed Retainers versus a removable Retainer. There was weak unreliable evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular ( P
