下颌固定保持器的存活率:管式保持器与传统多股保持器的比较:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-27 DOI:10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5
Kyungmin Clara Lee, Seung-Weon Lim, Jin-Hyoung Cho, Heesoo Oh, Hyeon-Shik Hwang
{"title":"下颌固定保持器的存活率:管式保持器与传统多股保持器的比较:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。","authors":"Kyungmin Clara Lee, Seung-Weon Lim, Jin-Hyoung Cho, Heesoo Oh, Hyeon-Shik Hwang","doi":"10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were to evaluate the survival rate of a tube-type mandibular fixed retainer and compare it to conventional multistrand retainers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.</p>","PeriodicalId":54776,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers: comparison of a tube-type retainer and conventional multistrand retainers : A prospective randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Kyungmin Clara Lee, Seung-Weon Lim, Jin-Hyoung Cho, Heesoo Oh, Hyeon-Shik Hwang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were to evaluate the survival rate of a tube-type mandibular fixed retainer and compare it to conventional multistrand retainers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究的目的是评估管式下颌固定保持器的存活率,并将其与传统的多排保持器进行比较:共有 66 名完成正畸治疗的患者参与了这项研究。他们被随机分配到管式保持器组或0.020多丝固定保持器组。在管式保持器组中,将热活性 0.012 NiTi 放入 6 个迷你管中,被动粘结在前牙上。在放置保持器后的 1、3、6、12 和 24 个月对患者进行复诊。在 2 年的随访期间,记录了保持器的首次失败情况。采用卡普兰-梅耶生存分析法和对数秩检验来比较两种保持器的失败率:在34名患者中,14人(41.2%)的多线保持器失败,而在32名患者中,只有2人(6.3%)的管式保持器失败。多丝固位体和管型固位体的失败率有显著的统计学差异(对数秩检验,P = 0.001)。危险比为 11.937(95% 置信区间为 2.708-52.620;P = 0.005):结论:使用管式保持器可以减少正畸保持期间保持器反复脱落的担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers: comparison of a tube-type retainer and conventional multistrand retainers : A prospective randomized clinical trial.

Objective: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the survival rate of a tube-type mandibular fixed retainer and compare it to conventional multistrand retainers.

Materials and methods: In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.

Results: Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).

Conclusion: The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics provides orthodontists and dentists who are also actively interested in orthodontics, whether in university clinics or private practice, with highly authoritative and up-to-date information based on experimental and clinical research. The journal is one of the leading publications for the promulgation of the results of original work both in the areas of scientific and clinical orthodontics and related areas. All articles undergo peer review before publication. The German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO) also publishes in the journal important communications, statements and announcements.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Influence of functional and esthetic expectations on orthodontic pain. Mitteilungen der DGKFO. Dentoskeletal effects of clear aligner vs twin block-a short-term study of functional appliances. Evaluation and comparison of planum clival angle in three malocclusion groups : A CBCT study. Survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers: comparison of a tube-type retainer and conventional multistrand retainers : A prospective randomized clinical trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1