Sara Waldenström, Jilah Qaljaee, Andrea Bresin, Seifi Esmaili, Anna Westerlund
{"title":"椅旁矩形链式保持器与多股传统保持器的比较:随机对照试验。","authors":"Sara Waldenström, Jilah Qaljaee, Andrea Bresin, Seifi Esmaili, Anna Westerlund","doi":"10.1093/ejo/cjae033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While retention appliances are widely used in orthodontics, there is still no evidence-based consensus regarding the optimal type of appliance or time of retention.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare chairside rectangular chain retainers, which can be placed in one sitting, with conventional multi-stranded bonded retainers regarding their levels of stability, biological side effects, complications, and patient experiences.</p><p><strong>Trial design: </strong>A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 48 patients were included in this single-centre, randomized controlled trial conducted in Varberg, Region Halland, Sweden. The patients were randomized to two groups: the chairside rectangular chain retainer group, using the Ortho FlexTech retainer (OFT); and the conventional retainer group, using the 0.0195 Penta One multi-stranded spiral wire (PeO). The primary outcome was Little´s irregularity index (LII) evaluated at debond (T0) and at 3 months (T3) and 12 months (T12). The secondary outcomes were inter-canine distance (ICD), plaque index (PI), calculus index (CI), bleeding on probing (BoP), and caries, evaluated at T0, T3, and T12, as well as patients' perceptions, evaluated at T3 and T12, and technical complications that were registered throughout the study period. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for continuous variables for inter-group comparisons, and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used for intra-group comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding LII, biological side effects, technical complications, or patients' experiences. However, there was a small but statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the maintenance of the ICD. Within the OFT group, there was a significant increase in CI, and within the PeO group, there was a significant increase in BoP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In terms of clinical relevance, the chairside rectangular chain retainer and the conventional multi-stranded spiral wire provide similar outcomes with respect to the stability of alignment, biological side-effects, technical complications, and patients' experiences short-term.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>VGFOUreg-929962. Keywords: Orthodontic retainers; fixed retainers; retention; stability.</p>","PeriodicalId":11989,"journal":{"name":"European journal of orthodontics","volume":"46 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of chairside rectangular chain retainers and multi-stranded conventional retainers: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Sara Waldenström, Jilah Qaljaee, Andrea Bresin, Seifi Esmaili, Anna Westerlund\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ejo/cjae033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While retention appliances are widely used in orthodontics, there is still no evidence-based consensus regarding the optimal type of appliance or time of retention.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare chairside rectangular chain retainers, which can be placed in one sitting, with conventional multi-stranded bonded retainers regarding their levels of stability, biological side effects, complications, and patient experiences.</p><p><strong>Trial design: </strong>A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 48 patients were included in this single-centre, randomized controlled trial conducted in Varberg, Region Halland, Sweden. The patients were randomized to two groups: the chairside rectangular chain retainer group, using the Ortho FlexTech retainer (OFT); and the conventional retainer group, using the 0.0195 Penta One multi-stranded spiral wire (PeO). The primary outcome was Little´s irregularity index (LII) evaluated at debond (T0) and at 3 months (T3) and 12 months (T12). The secondary outcomes were inter-canine distance (ICD), plaque index (PI), calculus index (CI), bleeding on probing (BoP), and caries, evaluated at T0, T3, and T12, as well as patients' perceptions, evaluated at T3 and T12, and technical complications that were registered throughout the study period. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for continuous variables for inter-group comparisons, and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used for intra-group comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding LII, biological side effects, technical complications, or patients' experiences. However, there was a small but statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the maintenance of the ICD. Within the OFT group, there was a significant increase in CI, and within the PeO group, there was a significant increase in BoP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In terms of clinical relevance, the chairside rectangular chain retainer and the conventional multi-stranded spiral wire provide similar outcomes with respect to the stability of alignment, biological side-effects, technical complications, and patients' experiences short-term.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>VGFOUreg-929962. Keywords: Orthodontic retainers; fixed retainers; retention; stability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of orthodontics\",\"volume\":\"46 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjae033\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjae033","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:虽然固位矫治器在正畸学中被广泛使用,但关于最佳的矫治器类型或固位时间,目前仍没有基于证据的共识:比较可一次置入的椅旁矩形链式保持器与传统多股粘结保持器在稳定性、生物副作用、并发症和患者体验方面的差异:试验设计:单中心、双臂、平行组随机对照试验:这项单中心随机对照试验在瑞典哈兰德地区的瓦尔贝里进行,共纳入了 48 名患者。患者被随机分为两组:椅旁矩形链保持器组,使用 Ortho FlexTech 保持器 (OFT);传统保持器组,使用 0.0195 Penta One 多股螺旋钢丝 (PeO)。主要结果是在脱钩(T0)、3 个月(T3)和 12 个月(T12)时评估 Little´s 不整齐指数(LII)。次要结果是在 T0、T3 和 T12 时评估的犬牙间距离 (ICD)、牙菌斑指数 (PI)、牙结石指数 (CI)、探诊出血量 (BoP) 和龋坏情况,以及在 T3 和 T12 时评估的患者感受和整个研究期间登记的技术并发症。连续变量的组间比较采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验,组内比较采用 Wilcoxon Signed Rank 检验:在 LII、生物副作用、技术并发症或患者体验方面,组间差异无统计学意义。然而,在 ICD 的维护方面,组间差异较小,但有统计学意义。在 OFT 组中,CI 显著增加,而在 PeO 组中,BoP 显著增加:就临床相关性而言,椅旁矩形链式固位体和传统的多股螺旋钢丝在排列的稳定性、生物副作用、技术并发症和患者的短期体验方面具有相似的结果:试验注册:VGFOUreg-929962。试验注册:VGFOUreg-929962:正畸保持器;固定保持器;保持;稳定性。
Comparison of chairside rectangular chain retainers and multi-stranded conventional retainers: a randomized controlled trial.
Background: While retention appliances are widely used in orthodontics, there is still no evidence-based consensus regarding the optimal type of appliance or time of retention.
Objectives: To compare chairside rectangular chain retainers, which can be placed in one sitting, with conventional multi-stranded bonded retainers regarding their levels of stability, biological side effects, complications, and patient experiences.
Trial design: A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.
Methods: In total, 48 patients were included in this single-centre, randomized controlled trial conducted in Varberg, Region Halland, Sweden. The patients were randomized to two groups: the chairside rectangular chain retainer group, using the Ortho FlexTech retainer (OFT); and the conventional retainer group, using the 0.0195 Penta One multi-stranded spiral wire (PeO). The primary outcome was Little´s irregularity index (LII) evaluated at debond (T0) and at 3 months (T3) and 12 months (T12). The secondary outcomes were inter-canine distance (ICD), plaque index (PI), calculus index (CI), bleeding on probing (BoP), and caries, evaluated at T0, T3, and T12, as well as patients' perceptions, evaluated at T3 and T12, and technical complications that were registered throughout the study period. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for continuous variables for inter-group comparisons, and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used for intra-group comparisons.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding LII, biological side effects, technical complications, or patients' experiences. However, there was a small but statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the maintenance of the ICD. Within the OFT group, there was a significant increase in CI, and within the PeO group, there was a significant increase in BoP.
Conclusions: In terms of clinical relevance, the chairside rectangular chain retainer and the conventional multi-stranded spiral wire provide similar outcomes with respect to the stability of alignment, biological side-effects, technical complications, and patients' experiences short-term.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Orthodontics publishes papers of excellence on all aspects of orthodontics including craniofacial development and growth. The emphasis of the journal is on full research papers. Succinct and carefully prepared papers are favoured in terms of impact as well as readability.