Periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers: 0.032-in SS V-loop versus 0.0215-in SS coaxial - a randomized crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized crossover trial evaluated periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers (a modified 0.032-in SS V-loop retainer and a conventional 0.0215-in SS coaxial wire retainer) after bonded for six months. Also, bonded failure rate, and a questionnaire about comfort, ease of cleaning and overall preference were recorded. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 15 patients were enrolled in this study who used both retainers for six months each, having a 15-day wash-out interval between each bonded retainer usage. The following periodontal index were recorded: Plaque Index (PI), Calculus Index (CI) and Gingival Index (GI). Patients answered a questionnaire to assess comfort, ease of cleaning and overall retainer-type preference. Rate of bonding failure was also evaluated. RESULTS: V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (P<0.05) as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer. However, CI and GI presented no statistically significant differences between both types of retainers. The conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer was chosen as the most comfortable (p<0.05), although no statistically significant differences were found for all other questionnaire answers. Bonding failure events were more observed in the 3x3 V-Loop retainer (p<0.002), as compared to the conventional 0.0215-in coaxial retainer. CONCLUSION: V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (p<0.05), higher bonding failure rate and less comfortable, as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire.

Periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers: 0.032-in SS V-loop versus 0.0215-in SS coaxial - a randomized crossover trial

ABSTRACT Objective: This randomized crossover trial evaluated periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers (a modified 0.032-in SS V-loop retainer and a conventional 0.0215-in SS coaxial wire retainer) after bonded for six months. Also, bonded failure rate, and a questionnaire about comfort, ease of cleaning and overall preference were recorded. Material and Methods: 15 patients were enrolled in this study who used both retainers for six months each, having a 15-day wash-out interval between each bonded retainer usage. The following periodontal index were recorded: Plaque Index (PI), Calculus Index (CI) and Gingival Index (GI). Patients answered a questionnaire to assess comfort, ease of cleaning and overall retainer-type preference. Rate of bonding failure was also evaluated. Results: V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (P<0.05) as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer. However, CI and GI presented no statistically significant differences between both types of retainers. The conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer was chosen as the most comfortable (p<0.05), although no statistically significant differences were found for all other questionnaire answers. Bonding failure events were more observed in the 3x3 V-Loop retainer (p<0.002), as compared to the conventional 0.0215-in coaxial retainer. Conclusion: V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (p<0.05), higher bonding failure rate and less comfortable, as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire.

RESUMO Objetivo: Este estudo cruzado e randomizado avaliou os índices periodontais de dois tipos de contenções 3x3 (uma contenção aço V-Loop de 0,032" modificada e uma contenção convencional de fio coaxial aço de 0,0215") após colagem, por seis meses. Além disso, foram registradas a taxa de falha na colagem e um questionário sobre conforto, facilidade de limpeza e preferência geral. Material e Métodos: Foram incluídos nesse estudo 15 pacientes que usaram ambas as contenções por seis meses cada, com intervalo de quinze dias entre cada contenção fixa. Foram registrados os seguintes índices periodontais: Índice de Placa (IP), Índice de Cálculo (IC) e Índice Gengival (IG). Os pacientes responderam a um questionário para avaliar o conforto, a facilidade de limpeza e a preferência geral pelo tipo de contenção. A taxa de falha de colagem também foi avaliada. Resultados: A contenção V-Loop apresentou maior IP (p<0,05) em comparação ao fio coaxial convencional. Entretanto, IC e IG não apresentaram diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre as contenções testadas. A contenção convencional de fio coaxial 0,0215" foi escolhida como a mais confortável (p<0,05), embora não tenham sido encontradas diferenças estatisticamente significativas para todas as outras respostas do questionário. Eventos de falha de colagem foram mais observados na contenção V-Loop 3 x 3 (p<0,002) em comparação com a contenção coaxial convencional de 0,0215". Conclusão: A contenção V-Loop apresentou maior IP (p<0,05), maior taxa de falha de colagem e foi menos confortável em comparação ao fio coaxial convencional 0,0215".