Factors affecting stability after fixed orthodontic treatment
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2018.09.006
- VernacularTitle: 全口固定矫治疗效稳定性的影响因素分析
- Author:
Shanshan REN
1
;
Xin DAI
2
;
Ming YING
1
;
Weixiang WANG
1
;
Jiao CHANG
1
;
Zhiming HOU
1
Author Information
1. First Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University & Liaoning Institute of Dental Research, Shenyang 110002, China
2. First Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University & Liaoning Institute of Dental Research, Shenyang 110002, China (Present address: Shenyang Heping Ally Dental Clinic, Shenyang 110003, China)
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Treatment outcome;
Orthodontic retainers;
Follow-up studies;
Orthodontics, corrective
- From:
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2018;53(9):599-603
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze factors affecting stability after fixed orthodontic treatment.
Methods:Five hundred and forty-four patients who had finished fixed orthodontic treatment more than two years in First Department of Orthodontics, China Medical University from January, 2000 to December, 2017 were investigated and the rate of regular revisit was counted. The data of 288 patients were successfully collected by calling or sending text messages and the rate of standard use of retainers as prescribed (patients wore retainers for 24 months or longer) was counted. According to the variation of peer assessment rating (PAR) index at the start of retention and the time the data collected, the patients were divided into relapse group (variation of PAR index >5) and non-relapse group (variation of PAR index ≤5). Difference significance analysis and multiple-factor logistic regression analysis were used. Sixty patients wearing retainers well were collected and the curative effects of Hawley retainer and vacuum formed retainer (VFR) were compared, which included overbite, overjet, maxillary irregularity index, mandibular irregularity index, width betwenn canine and width between first molar.
Results:The rate of regular revisit was 41.0% (223/544). Two hundred and one of 288 patients (69.8%) who were visited successfully had regular revisit, and 60.4%(174/288) of the patients wore retainers well; 30.2% (87/288) of the patients who were visited successfully didn't have regular revisit, and 10.4% (30/288) of the patients wore retainers well. Difference significance analysis showed that there was highly significant difference between relapse group and non-relapse group in the type of retainer and duration of retention (P<0.01). One hundred and forty of 224 patients (62.5%) in non-relapse group and 37.5% (24/64) of the patients in relapse group used VFR, and the duration of retention in non-relapse group was significantly longer than that in relapse group (P<0.01). Multiple-factor Logistic regression analysis showed that wearing Hawley retainers (OR=3.067, P<0.05) was the risk factor influencing relapse. The duration of retention (OR=0.832, P<0.01) was the protective factor influencing relapse. Independent-sample t test indicated that the variations of maxillary [(0.82±0.36) mm] and mandibular [(1.05±0.22) mm] irregularity index in Hawley retainer group were larger than maxillary [(0.64±0.29) mm] and mandibular [(0.72±0.35) mm)] irregularity index in VFR group, respectively. The differences between the two groups were significant (P<0.05).
Conclusions:Duration of retention was implicated in stability after orthodontic treatment. VFR had better effect in the aspects of irregularity index than Hawley retainer.
