nach oben

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Erschienen in:

29.05.2020 | Original Article

Computerized occlusal analysis of Essix and Hawley retainers used during the retention phase: a controlled clinical trial

verfasst von: Assistant Professor Özer Alkan, Assistant Professor Yeşim Kaya, Professor Sıddık Keskin

Erschienen in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the occlusal force distribution (OFD), individual tooth force (ITF), and occlusal surface area (OSA) of Essix and Hawley retainers, using T‑Scan III (Tekscan Inc., South Boston, MA, USA) analysis.

Materials and methods

A total of 35 subjects were randomly assigned to one of the retention groups following fixed orthodontic treatment. While 18 of these subjects were provided with Essix retainers, 17 were given Hawley retainers. Computerized occlusal analysis of the patients’ dentitions was performed using T‑Scan III. The evaluations were made after debonding (T0) and at month 3 (T1), month 6 (T2) and 1 year (T3) after the retention phase.

Results

The changes in OFD were significant only in the Hawley group for the left/right half jaws and the right posterior quadrants when comparing the T2–T3 time interval. Also, the differences between the groups were significant only for the left half jaw for the T0–T2 time interval and for the right half jaw when comparing the T0–T2 and the T2–T3 time intervals. The changes in ITF were insignificant within groups, but significant between the groups for tooth 11 and 22. Although there was an increase observed in OSA for both groups, the difference between the groups was insignificant. However, the OSA increase in the Essix group for the left/right anterior quadrants was significant only for the T0–T2 and the T0–T3 time intervals, while in both groups, for the posterior left quadrant, the OSA was insignificant only for the T0–T1 time interval.

Conclusions

Although OSA increased when using both retention appliances, OFD did not change.

Afrashtehfar KI, Qadeer S (2016) Computerized occlusal analysis as an alternative occlusal indicator. Cranio 34(1):52–57PubMedCrossRef

Al-Khateeb SN, Abu Alhaija ES, Majzoub S (2015) Occlusal bite force change after orthodontic treatment with Andresen functional appliance. Eur J Orthod 37(2):142–146PubMedCrossRef

Andrews LF (1972) The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 62(3):296–309PubMedCrossRef

Aslan BI, Dinçer M, Salmanli O, Qasem MA (2013) Comparison of the effects of modified and full-coverage thermoplastic retainers on occlusal contacts. Orthodontics 14(1):198–208

Bakke M (2006) Bite force and occlusion. Semin Orthod 12(2):120–126CrossRef

Başçiftçi FA, Uysal T, Sari Z, Inan O (2007) Occlusal contacts with different retention procedures in 1‑year follow-up period. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131(3):357–362PubMedCrossRef

Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, Riolo M, Owens SE Jr, Bills ED (1998) Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114(5):589–599PubMedCrossRef

Clark JR, Evans RD (2001) Functional occlusion: I. A review. J Orthod 28(1):76–81PubMedCrossRef

Cerna M, Ferreira R, Zaror C, Navarro P, Sandoval P (2015) Validity and reliability of T‑Scan^(®) III for measuring force under laboratory conditions. J Oral Rehabil 42(7):544–551PubMedCrossRef

10.

Cerna M, Ferreira R, Zaror C, Navarro P, Sandoval P (2015) In vitro evaluation of T‑Scan^(®) III through study of the sensels. Cranio 33(4):299–305PubMedCrossRef

11.

Demir A, Babacan H, Nalcacı R, Topcuoglu T (2012) Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. Korean J Orthod 42(5):255–262PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Dinçer M, Meral O, Tümer N (2003) The investigation of occlusal contacts during the retention period. Angle Orthod 73(6):640–646PubMed

13.

DeLong R, Knorr S, Anderson GC, Hodges J, Pintado MR (2007) Accuracy of contacts calculated from 3D images of occlusal surfaces. J Dent 35(6):528–534PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Gardner GD, Dunn WJ, Taloumis L (2003) Wear comparison of thermoplastic materials used for orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124(3):294–297PubMedCrossRef

15.

Haydar B, Karabulut G, Ozkan S, Aksoy AU, Ciğer S (1996) Effects of retainers on the articulation of speech. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110(5):535–540PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A, Hollinghurst S, Ewings P, Clark S, Ireland A, Sandy J (2007) Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Eur J Orthod 29(4):372–378PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hoybjerg AJ, Currier GF, Kadioğlu O (2013) Evaluation of 3 retention protocols using the American Board of Orthodontics casts and radiograph evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144(1):16–22PubMedCrossRef

18.

Iscan HN, Sarisoy L (1997) Comparison of the effects of passive posterior bite-blocks with different construction bites on the craniofacial and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112(2):171–178PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lee SM, Lee JW (2016) Computerized occlusal analysis: correlation with occlusal indexes to assess the outcome of orthodontic treatment or the severity of malocclusion. Korean J Orthod 46(1):27–35PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Lindauer SJ, Shoff RC (1998) Comparison of Essix and Hawley retainers. J Clin Orthod 32(2):95–97PubMed

21.

Lustig JR, Rossouw PE, Buschang PH, Behrents RG, Woody RD (2017) Assessment of post-orthodontic occlusal contacts with wrap-around and clear overlay retainers. Semin Orthod 23(2):166–177CrossRef

22.

Mai W, He J, Meng H, Jiang Y, Huang C, Li M, Yuan K, Kang N (2014) Comparison of vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 145(6):720–727PubMedCrossRef

23.

Majithia IP, Arora V, Anil Kumar S, Saxena V, Mittal M (2015) Comparison of articulating paper markings and T‑Scan III recordings to evaluate occlusal force in normal and rehabilitated maxillofacial trauma patients. Med J Armed Forces India 71(2):382–388CrossRef

24.

Manzon L, Fratto G, Rossi E, Buccheri A (2018) Periodontal health and compliance: a comparison between Essix and Hawley retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 153(6):852–860PubMedCrossRef

25.

Melrose C, Millett DT (1998) Toward a perspective on orthodontic retention? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113(5):507–514PubMedCrossRef

26.

Moslemzadeh SH, Sohrabi A, Rafighi A, Ghojazadeh M, Rahmanian S (2017) Comparison of survival time of Hawley and Vacuum-formed retainers in orthodontic patients—a randomized clinical trial. ABC Med 5(1):7–15

27.

Padmos JAD, Fudalej PS, Renkema AM (2018) Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 153(4):496–504PubMedCrossRef

28.

Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Lindstrom AF (2011) Patient compliance with orthodontic retainers in the postretention phase. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140(2):196–201PubMedCrossRef

29.

Proffit WR (2007) Retention. In: Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM (eds) Contemporary orthodontics, 6th edn. Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, pp 617–631

30.

Qadeer S, Yang L, Sarinnaphakorn L, Kerstein RB (2016) Comparison of closure occlusal force parameters in post-orthodontic and non-orthodontic subjects using T‑Scan^® III DMD occlusal analysis. Cranio 34(6):395–401PubMedCrossRef

31.

Raja TA, Littlewood SJ, Munyombwe T, Bubb NL (2014) Wear resistance of four types of vacuum-formed retainer materials: a laboratory study. Angle Orthod 84(4):656–664PubMedCrossRef

32.

Ramazanzadeh B, Ahrari F, Hosseini ZS (2018) The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols. J Clin Exp Dent 10(3):224–231

33.

Saraçoğlu A, Ozpinar B (2002) In vivo and in vitro evaluation of occlusal indicator sensivity. J Prosthet Dent 88(5):522–526PubMedCrossRef

34.

Sari Z, Uysal T, Başçiftçi FA, Inan O (2009) Occlusal contact changes with removable and bonded retainers in a 1-year retention period. Angle Orthod 79(5):867–872PubMedCrossRef

35.

Sauget E, Covell DA Jr, Boero RP, Lieber WS (1997) Comparison of occlusal contacts with use of Hawley and clear overlay retainers. Angle Orthod 67(3):223–230PubMed

36.

Sayin MO, Türkkahraman H (2004) Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population. Angle Orthod 74:635–639PubMed

37.

Sultana MH, Yamada K, Hanada K (2002) Changes in occlusal force and occlusal contact area after active orthodontic treatment: a pilot study using pressure-sensitive sheets. J Oral Rehabil 29(5):484–491PubMedCrossRef

38.

Varga S, Spalj S, Anic Milosevic S, Lapter Varga M, Mestrovic S, Trinajstic Zrinski M, Slaj M (2017) Changes of bite force and occlusal contacts in the retention phase of orthodontic treatment: A controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 152(6):767–777PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Computerized occlusal analysis of Essix and Hawley retainers used during the retention phase: a controlled clinical trial
verfasst von: Assistant Professor Özer Alkan
Assistant Professor Yeşim Kaya
Professor Sıddık Keskin
Publikationsdatum: 29.05.2020
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Erschienen in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00236-4

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Computerized occlusal analysis of Essix and Hawley retainers used during the retention phase: a controlled clinical trial

Abstract