The Experts below are selected from a list of 189 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Satish Kumar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Fixed and removable Orthodontic Retainers and periodontal health
Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2017Co-Authors: Parthasarathy Madurantakam, Satish KumarAbstract:Data sources Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS and BBO databases with no language restrictions; unpublished literature was searched in Proquest Dissertations and Theses database, clinicaltrials.gov and controlled-trials.com. Study selection Randomised and nonrandomised controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series (with a minimum sample size of 20 patients) in patients who underwent fixed or removable appliance Orthodontic therapy with a minimum follow-up period of six months. The primary outcome was periodontal health; while failure rates, impact of Orthodontic Retainers on patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness served as secondary outcomes. Data extraction and synthesis Full texts of relevant abstracts were retrieved and data extracted using pre-piloted data collection forms by two authors. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomised studies. Only RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias and non-randomised studies of moderate or high methodological quality were included in the meta-analysis (MA). If moderate to high heterogeneity was present (I^2 > 50%), MA was not performed. Results Out of the 18 included RCTs, 11 were assessed to be of low risk of bias while five out of six prospective cohort studies were considered high quality using the NOS. The authors did not perform MA because of significant heterogeneity that existed among different studies. With regards to periodontal health, there was no significant difference in probing depth and bleeding on probing between fixed mandibular stainless steel (SS) Retainers (bonded to anterior teeth or canines only), fibre reinforced composite Retainers or Hawley Retainers at three-year follow-up. However, there was increased plaque accumulation around fibre reinforced composite Retainers compared to SS Retainers. The failure rates of mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded from canine to canine was 0.29 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.26, 0.33) over a follow-up period of six to 36 months. The failure risk for mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded to canines only was 0.25 (CI, 0.16, 0.33) over a follow-up period of one to three years. A meta-regression showed that follow-up period was not a predictor of failure rate for mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers. The failure rates of removable Retainers (Hawley's or vacuum formed Retainers) are lower than the bonded fixed Retainers. Removable Hawley's Retainer was associated with increased discomfort as well as higher levels of embarrassment with speech and aesthetics. In terms of cost-effectiveness, vacuum-formed Retainers were found to be significantly more cost-effective than Hawley Retainers or mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded to canines. Conclusions There is a lack of high-quality evidence to endorse the use of one type of Orthodontic Retainer based on their effect on periodontal health, risk of failure, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
-
Fixed and removable Orthodontic Retainers and periodontal health.
Evidence-based Dentistry, 2017Co-Authors: Parthasarathy Madurantakam, Satish KumarAbstract:Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS and BBO databases with no language restrictions; unpublished literature was searched in Proquest Dissertations and Theses database, clinicaltrials.gov and controlled-trials.com. Randomised and nonrandomised controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series (with a minimum sample size of 20 patients) in patients who underwent fixed or removable appliance Orthodontic therapy with a minimum follow-up period of six months. The primary outcome was periodontal health; while failure rates, impact of Orthodontic Retainers on patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness served as secondary outcomes. Full texts of relevant abstracts were retrieved and data extracted using pre-piloted data collection forms by two authors. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomised studies. Only RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias and non-randomised studies of moderate or high methodological quality were included in the meta-analysis (MA). If moderate to high heterogeneity was present (I2 > 50%), MA was not performed. Out of the 18 included RCTs, 11 were assessed to be of low risk of bias while five out of six prospective cohort studies were considered high quality using the NOS. The authors did not perform MA because of significant heterogeneity that existed among different studies. With regards to periodontal health, there was no significant difference in probing depth and bleeding on probing between fixed mandibular stainless steel (SS) Retainers (bonded to anterior teeth or canines only), fibre reinforced composite Retainers or Hawley Retainers at three-year follow-up. However, there was increased plaque accumulation around fibre reinforced composite Retainers compared to SS Retainers. The failure rates of mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded from canine to canine was 0.29 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.26, 0.33) over a follow-up period of six to 36 months. The failure risk for mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded to canines only was 0.25 (CI, 0.16, 0.33) over a follow-up period of one to three years. A meta-regression showed that follow-up period was not a predictor of failure rate for mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers. The failure rates of removable Retainers (Hawley's or vacuum formed Retainers) are lower than the bonded fixed Retainers. Removable Hawley's Retainer was associated with increased discomfort as well as higher levels of embarrassment with speech and aesthetics. In terms of cost-effectiveness, vacuum-formed Retainers were found to be significantly more cost-effective than Hawley Retainers or mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded to canines. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to endorse the use of one type of Orthodontic Retainer based on their effect on periodontal health, risk of failure, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
A User - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
bonded Orthodontic Retainer and fixed partial denture made with fiber reinforced composite resin
European Journal of Dentistry, 2011Co-Authors: Ovul Kumbuloglu, Ahmet Saracoglu, Cenk Cura, A UserAbstract:Retention is the phase of Orthodontic treatment which maintains teeth in their Orthodontically corrected positions, following the cessation of active Orthodontic tooth movement. Development of resin-impregnated, fiber-reinforced composite materials has provided the potential to develop new approaches for stabilizing teeth and replacing teeth conservatively. This case report describes the rehabilitation of a patient with Orthodontic and prosthetic problems. The long-term behavior of glass fibers splint must be evaluated in clinical studies.
Parthasarathy Madurantakam - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Fixed and removable Orthodontic Retainers and periodontal health
Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2017Co-Authors: Parthasarathy Madurantakam, Satish KumarAbstract:Data sources Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS and BBO databases with no language restrictions; unpublished literature was searched in Proquest Dissertations and Theses database, clinicaltrials.gov and controlled-trials.com. Study selection Randomised and nonrandomised controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series (with a minimum sample size of 20 patients) in patients who underwent fixed or removable appliance Orthodontic therapy with a minimum follow-up period of six months. The primary outcome was periodontal health; while failure rates, impact of Orthodontic Retainers on patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness served as secondary outcomes. Data extraction and synthesis Full texts of relevant abstracts were retrieved and data extracted using pre-piloted data collection forms by two authors. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomised studies. Only RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias and non-randomised studies of moderate or high methodological quality were included in the meta-analysis (MA). If moderate to high heterogeneity was present (I^2 > 50%), MA was not performed. Results Out of the 18 included RCTs, 11 were assessed to be of low risk of bias while five out of six prospective cohort studies were considered high quality using the NOS. The authors did not perform MA because of significant heterogeneity that existed among different studies. With regards to periodontal health, there was no significant difference in probing depth and bleeding on probing between fixed mandibular stainless steel (SS) Retainers (bonded to anterior teeth or canines only), fibre reinforced composite Retainers or Hawley Retainers at three-year follow-up. However, there was increased plaque accumulation around fibre reinforced composite Retainers compared to SS Retainers. The failure rates of mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded from canine to canine was 0.29 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.26, 0.33) over a follow-up period of six to 36 months. The failure risk for mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded to canines only was 0.25 (CI, 0.16, 0.33) over a follow-up period of one to three years. A meta-regression showed that follow-up period was not a predictor of failure rate for mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers. The failure rates of removable Retainers (Hawley's or vacuum formed Retainers) are lower than the bonded fixed Retainers. Removable Hawley's Retainer was associated with increased discomfort as well as higher levels of embarrassment with speech and aesthetics. In terms of cost-effectiveness, vacuum-formed Retainers were found to be significantly more cost-effective than Hawley Retainers or mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded to canines. Conclusions There is a lack of high-quality evidence to endorse the use of one type of Orthodontic Retainer based on their effect on periodontal health, risk of failure, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
-
Fixed and removable Orthodontic Retainers and periodontal health.
Evidence-based Dentistry, 2017Co-Authors: Parthasarathy Madurantakam, Satish KumarAbstract:Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS and BBO databases with no language restrictions; unpublished literature was searched in Proquest Dissertations and Theses database, clinicaltrials.gov and controlled-trials.com. Randomised and nonrandomised controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series (with a minimum sample size of 20 patients) in patients who underwent fixed or removable appliance Orthodontic therapy with a minimum follow-up period of six months. The primary outcome was periodontal health; while failure rates, impact of Orthodontic Retainers on patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness served as secondary outcomes. Full texts of relevant abstracts were retrieved and data extracted using pre-piloted data collection forms by two authors. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomised studies. Only RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias and non-randomised studies of moderate or high methodological quality were included in the meta-analysis (MA). If moderate to high heterogeneity was present (I2 > 50%), MA was not performed. Out of the 18 included RCTs, 11 were assessed to be of low risk of bias while five out of six prospective cohort studies were considered high quality using the NOS. The authors did not perform MA because of significant heterogeneity that existed among different studies. With regards to periodontal health, there was no significant difference in probing depth and bleeding on probing between fixed mandibular stainless steel (SS) Retainers (bonded to anterior teeth or canines only), fibre reinforced composite Retainers or Hawley Retainers at three-year follow-up. However, there was increased plaque accumulation around fibre reinforced composite Retainers compared to SS Retainers. The failure rates of mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded from canine to canine was 0.29 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.26, 0.33) over a follow-up period of six to 36 months. The failure risk for mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded to canines only was 0.25 (CI, 0.16, 0.33) over a follow-up period of one to three years. A meta-regression showed that follow-up period was not a predictor of failure rate for mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers. The failure rates of removable Retainers (Hawley's or vacuum formed Retainers) are lower than the bonded fixed Retainers. Removable Hawley's Retainer was associated with increased discomfort as well as higher levels of embarrassment with speech and aesthetics. In terms of cost-effectiveness, vacuum-formed Retainers were found to be significantly more cost-effective than Hawley Retainers or mandibular stainless steel fixed Retainers bonded to canines. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to endorse the use of one type of Orthodontic Retainer based on their effect on periodontal health, risk of failure, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Adam F Lindstrom - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
patient compliance with Orthodontic Retainers in the postretention phase
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2011Co-Authors: Michael C Pratt, Thomas G Kluemper, Adam F LindstromAbstract:INTRODUCTION: Retention is an important, even critical, component of Orthodontic treatment. There is little research on practice protocols and patient compliance with long-term or short-term retention. This lack of information leaves our specialty with many opinions and practice protocols. The purposes of this study were to evaluate and quantify Orthodontic Retainer wear according to several variables, including patient age, sex, time in retention, and Retainer type, and to identify predictors of compliance and reasons for noncompliance with removable Orthodontic Retainers. METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to patients who finished full fixed appliance therapy in either the Orthodontic graduate clinic or the Orthodontic faculty practice at the University of Kentucky within the past 6 years. Of the 1085 questionnaires mailed, 280 were returned (25.8%). A logistic regression model that described the probabilities of Retainer wear was created (P <0.0001). RESULTS: Patient compliance was greater with vacuum-formed Retainers (VFRs) for the first 2 years after debonding. However, compliance with VFRs decreased at a much faster rate than with Hawley Retainers. Because of this, patient compliance was greater with Hawley Retainers at any time longer than 2 years after debonding, and patient compliance overall was greater with Hawley Retainers. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence disagrees with the current anecdotal trend of orthodontists who favor switching from Hawley Retainers to VFRs. An unexpected finding was that patients reported few esthetic concerns about Retainers, and the few that were reported were equally distributed between Hawley Retainers and VFRs.
-
Patient compliance with Orthodontic Retainers in the postretention phase
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2011Co-Authors: Michael C Pratt, G. Thomas Kluemper, Adam F LindstromAbstract:Introduction Retention is an important, even critical, component of Orthodontic treatment. There is little research on practice protocols and patient compliance with long-term or short-term retention. This lack of information leaves our specialty with many opinions and practice protocols. The purposes of this study were to evaluate and quantify Orthodontic Retainer wear according to several variables, including patient age, sex, time in retention, and Retainer type, and to identify predictors of compliance and reasons for noncompliance with removable Orthodontic Retainers. Methods Questionnaires were mailed to patients who finished full fixed appliance therapy in either the Orthodontic graduate clinic or the Orthodontic faculty practice at the University of Kentucky within the past 6 years. Of the 1085 questionnaires mailed, 280 were returned (25.8%). A logistic regression model that described the probabilities of Retainer wear was created ( P Results Patient compliance was greater with vacuum-formed Retainers (VFRs) for the first 2 years after debonding. However, compliance with VFRs decreased at a much faster rate than with Hawley Retainers. Because of this, patient compliance was greater with Hawley Retainers at any time longer than 2 years after debonding, and patient compliance overall was greater with Hawley Retainers. Conclusions This evidence disagrees with the current anecdotal trend of orthodontists who favor switching from Hawley Retainers to VFRs. An unexpected finding was that patients reported few esthetic concerns about Retainers, and the few that were reported were equally distributed between Hawley Retainers and VFRs.
-
Patient compliance with Orthodontic Retainers in the postretention phase.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2011Co-Authors: Michael C Pratt, G. Thomas Kluemper, Adam F LindstromAbstract:INTRODUCTION: Retention is an important, even critical, component of Orthodontic treatment. There is little research on practice protocols and patient compliance with long-term or short-term retention. This lack of information leaves our specialty with many opinions and practice protocols. The purposes of this study were to evaluate and quantify Orthodontic Retainer wear according to several variables, including patient age, sex, time in retention, and Retainer type, and to identify predictors of compliance and reasons for noncompliance with removable Orthodontic Retainers. METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to patients who finished full fixed appliance therapy in either the Orthodontic graduate clinic or the Orthodontic faculty practice at the University of Kentucky within the past 6 years. Of the 1085 questionnaires mailed, 280 were returned (25.8%). A logistic regression model that described the probabilities of Retainer wear was created (P
Giampiero Rossifedele - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the quality of information on the internet on Orthodontic Retainer wear a cross sectional study
Journal of Orthodontics, 2016Co-Authors: Esma J Dogramaci, Giampiero RossifedeleAbstract:Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess the accessibility, usability, reliability and quality of information on the Internet written for the lay public about Orthodontic Retainers, and to elucidate the different retention protocols encouraged. Design: A cross-sectional, observational study. Setting: Online, using a computer connected to the Internet in Australia. Methods: Two search terms; ‘Orthodontic Retainer’ and ‘how long should someone wear a Retainer after their braces are removed?’ were entered alternatively into five search engines. Twenty results for each search term per search engine that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were evaluated in terms of accessibility, usability, reliability and quality of information using the LIDA and DISCERN instruments, ensuring there were no internal or cross-search engine duplicates. Any information about frequency and duration of Retainer wear was also collected. Results: Two hundred different websites were identified and assessed. The median ove...