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。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE European journal of orthodontics Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjae033
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

Trial registration: VGFOUreg-929962. Keywords: Orthodontic retainers; fixed retainers; retention; stability.

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
European journal of orthodontics
European journal of orthodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Clinical risk factors caused by third molar levelling following extraction of a mandibular second molar. Does incisor inclination change during orthodontic treatment affect gingival thickness and the width of keratinized gingiva? A prospective controlled study. Roles of B-cell lymphoma 6 in orthodontic tooth movement of rat molars. Influence of genetic and environmental factors on transverse growth. The effect of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) in molar distalization treatments: an exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
×
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