Periodontal parameters of two types of 3 x 3 orthodontic retainer: a longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: bonded fixed retainers are often used to stabilize the results obtained with the orthodontic treatment. It is important that they do not prejudice dental health, as they will be used for a long period. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to compare periodontal indexes between two types of bonded fixed retainers, conventional 3 x 3 plain retainer (0.8-mm orthodontic wire, bonded to the canines only) and a manufactured braided retainer (0.2 x 0.7-mm stainless steel wire, bonded to all anterior teeth) after use. METHODS: a test group of 15 volunteers (aged from 18 to 25 years) used both the conventional retainer and braided retainer for six months. A randomized longitudinal study design, with a two week washout interval, was applied. The dental plaque index, gingival index and dental calculus index were evaluated. Furthermore, the calculus accumulated along the retainer wire was measured and all patients answered a questionnaire about the use, acceptance and comfort of both types of retainers. RESULTS: the scores for plaque and gingival indexes were higher for the braided retainer (p< 0.05) on the lingual and proximal surfaces. The same occurred with the calculus index on the lingual surfaces (p< 0.05). The calculus index along wire was higher for the braided retainer (p< 0.05). All patients preferred the conventional retainer, and said that it was also more comfortable to use. CONCLUSION: it was concluded that the conventional retainer showed better periodontal indexes than the braided type.

Periodontal parameters of two types of 3 x 3 orthodontic retainer: a longitudinal study

ABSTRACT Introduction: bonded fixed retainers are often used to stabilize the results obtained with the orthodontic treatment. It is important that they do not prejudice dental health, as they will be used for a long period. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare periodontal indexes between two types of bonded fixed retainers, conventional 3 x 3 plain retainer (0.8-mm orthodontic wire, bonded to the canines only) and a manufactured braided retainer (0.2 x 0.7-mm stainless steel wire, bonded to all anterior teeth) after use. Methods: a test group of 15 volunteers (aged from 18 to 25 years) used both the conventional retainer and braided retainer for six months. A randomized longitudinal study design, with a two week washout interval, was applied. The dental plaque index, gingival index and dental calculus index were evaluated. Furthermore, the calculus accumulated along the retainer wire was measured and all patients answered a questionnaire about the use, acceptance and comfort of both types of retainers. Results: the scores for plaque and gingival indexes were higher for the braided retainer (p< 0.05) on the lingual and proximal surfaces. The same occurred with the calculus index on the lingual surfaces (p< 0.05). The calculus index along wire was higher for the braided retainer (p< 0.05). All patients preferred the conventional retainer, and said that it was also more comfortable to use. Conclusion: it was concluded that the conventional retainer showed better periodontal indexes than the braided type.

RESUMO Introdução: as contenções ortodônticas fixas são amplamente utilizadas após o tratamento ortodôntico, sendo fundamental que esses dispositivos não se tornem prejudiciais à saúde dentária, já que serão usados por um longo período. Objetivo: o presente estudo teve como objetivo a avaliação periodontal da região da arcada inferior, comparando as condições de acúmulo de placa e cálculo ao longo do fio e na margem gengival, em decorrência do uso da contenção convencional (fio 0,8 mm de aço inoxidável colado apenas nos caninos) ou de uma contenção pré-fabricada com fio trançado (0,2 x 0,7 mm colado em todos os dentes anteroinferiores) após exposição ao meio bucal. Métodos: participaram do estudo 15 voluntários adultos jovens (idades entre 18 e 25 anos) que utilizaram dois tipos de contenções, por seis meses cada. Foi utilizado um modelo de estudo longitudinal, randomizado, com washout de 15 dias. Os parâmetros periodontais utilizados foram: índice gengival, índice de placa e índice de cálculo. O cálculo acumulado ao longo da contenção foi avaliado e todos os pacientes responderam a um questionário sobre o uso, aceitação e conforto de ambos os tipos de contenção. Resultados: observou-se que o índice de placa foi maior para a contenção com fio trançado (p<0,05), assim como o índice gengival (p<0,05). O mesmo ocorreu para o índice de cálculo nas faces proximais e lingual (p<0,05). O índice de cálculo ao longo do fio também foi significativamente maior para a contenção com fio trançado (p<0,05). Em relação ao questionário aplicado, 60% dos voluntários consideraram que a contenção com fio trançado foi mais desconfortável, e todos eles preferiram a contenção convencional. Conclusão: concluiu-se que a contenção convencional apresentou melhores resultados periodontais, quando comparada à contenção pré-fabricada com fio trançado.

Effects of palatal crib and bonded spurs in early treatment of anterior open bite: A prospective randomized clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the overbite correction of fixed palatal crib (FPC) and bonded lingual spur (BLS) in the early treatment of anterior open bite (AOB) in mixed dentition (primary outcome) as well as its influence on dental and skeletal cephalometric measurements (secondary outcome). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The selected patients had AOB and a mean age of 8.23 years. They were divided into the following three groups by casting lots: control (n  =  13), palatal crib (n  =  13), and spur (n  =  13). Data from the lateral teleradiography was obtained at the beginning, at 6 months, and after 1 year. The cephalometric analysis was performed by Cef-X program, recording the values of SNA, SNB, ANB, SnG oGn, 1.PP, IMPA, nasolabial angle, overbite, and overjet. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were obtained via one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: The degree of AOB was similar at baseline (P > .05). At 6 months and then after 1 year all groups showed improvement in the overbite. However, only the crib and spur groups showed positive overbite. No cephalometric measurements changed significantly over the period analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the FPC and BLS are simple and effective for the treatment of anterior open bite, with the advantage given to the FPC.