4.3 Article

Anterior tooth alignment: A comparison of orthodontic retention regimens 5 years posttreatment

期刊

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
卷 85, 期 3, 页码 353-359

出版社

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/051414-349.1

关键词

Retention; Alignment; Stability; PAR Index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess orthodontic treatment outcome at debonding and at 3 and 5 years after orthodontic treatment and to investigate the influence of different retention protocols on anterior tooth alignment. Materials and Methods: Using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index, 169 patients (74 boys, 95 girls) were analyzed at four stages: pretreatment (TO), posttreatment (T1), 3 years posttreatment (T3), and 5 years posttreatment (T5). The PAR anterior component scores (ACSs) were compared between groups with different retention protocols. In the maxilla, protocols were removable retainer until T3 (MAX1), removable and fixed retainer until T3 (MAX2), and removable retainer until T3 and fixed retainer until T5 (MAX3). In the mandible, protocols were no retainer (MAND1), fixed 3-3 retainer until T3 (MAND2), and fixed 3-3 retainer until T5 (MAND3). Results: Mean weighted improvement in PAR score was 88.3% at T1, 86.4% at T3, and 82.1% at T5. The ACS for the maxilla showed no significant differences between the retention protocols at any time point. In the mandible, the group without retention showed a gradual but not significant deterioration in ACS throughout the posttreatment period. At T5 there was a significant difference in ACS between the group that had the retainer removed at T3 and the group that kept the retainer. Conclusion: The 5-year treatment outcome, as measured by the PAR Index, was good. Stability of the maxillary anterior alignment 5 years posttreatment did not appear to be influenced by choice of retention protocol. Mandibular anterior alignment was significantly better for the group using a fixed retainer compared with the group where the retainer was removed 3 years posttreatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据