Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers

Objectives: To evaluate the long-term effects of seven different cleaning methods on light transmittance, surface roughness, and flexural modulus of a polyurethane retainer material. Materials and Methods: Polyurethane retainer specimens (Viverat, Align Technology Inc) (70 specimens, n ¼ 10 per method, 50.8 mm 3 12.7 mm 3 1.0 mm) were exposed to seven cleaning methods twice a week for 6 months. Before treatment and after 6 months, light transmittance, surface roughness, and flexural modulus of the specimens were quantified. Qualitative assessment of randomly selected specimens from each solution was performed at baseline and after 6 months using a scanning electron microscope. Statistical analyses were performed at the .05 significance level. Results: Of the three test variables, light transmittance through the specimens was the only one that changed significantly from baseline to 6 months for all cleaning solutions, with all of them causing a decrease. However, except for 0.6% sodium hypochlorite showing a change in surface roughness values and 2.5% vinegar and toothbrushing showing an increase in flexural modulus, none of the other four cleaning methods resulted in significant changes in surface roughness or flexural modulus values for the polyurethane specimens between baseline and after 6 months. Conclusions: Of the seven cleaning methods, Invisalignt cleaning crystals, Polidentt, and Listerinet showed the least amount of change in light transmittance values for the polyurethane specimens over 6 months, and they had no effect on surface roughness and flexural modulus values. (Angle Orthod. 2018;88:355-362.)

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term effects of seven cleaning methods on light transmittance, surface roughness, and flexural modulus of polyurethane retainer material

Agarwal

Wible

Ramir

et al. 2018

“…Since being introduced into the UK National Health Service fee structure in 1996, the rate of increase in the use of VFRs has been approximately nine times greater than that of Hawley retainers. 9 A vacuum machine adapts heat-softened plastic by negative pressure, creating a vacuum, and pulls the plastic onto a working study cast. The two most common materials used for VFRs are polyethylene copolymers and polypropylene polymers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of patients appear to prefer VFRs over Hawley retainers, and VFRs are less likely to be broken. 9,11 However, recent studies have found that there appear to be some problems with the physical properties of VFRs, in particular their resistance to wear. Campbell et al 12 looked into the reasons for replacement of VFRs over a 1-year period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wear resistance of four types of vacuum-formed retainer materials:A laboratory study

Raja¹,

Littlewood²,

Munyombwe³

et al. 2014

Objective: To investigate the resistance to wear of four different vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) materials: Essix C+, Essix ACE, Duran, and Tru-Tain. Essix C+ is a polypropylene polymer; the other materials are polyethylene co-polymers. Materials and Methods: The study was undertaken at the Leeds Dental Institute, Leeds, UK, with 26 samples in each group. The specimens were vacuum-formed according to the manufacturers' guidelines, and a custom-made wear-simulation machine was used to conduct the test. Each specimen was subjected to 1000 cycles of the wear simulation, with steatite balls as the antagonist material. The resistance to wear of the VFR materials was evaluated by measuring the maximum wear depth using noncontact, three-dimensional surface profilometry. The wear depth was given in micrometers.Results: The median wear depth was 63.20 mm for the Essix C+ group, 7.88 mm for the Essix ACE group, 9.75 mm for the Duran group, and 12.08 mm for the Tru-Tain group. The Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the four VFR materials detected a statistically significant difference between the groups (P , .001). Comparisons of the groups using the Mann-Whitney U-test demonstrated that the Essix C+ group had significantly greater wear than the other three groups (P , .001). There was no statistically significant difference in median wear depth between the two groups with the least amount of wear-the Essix ACE and Duran groups. Conclusions: Under the standardized conditions of this laboratory study, the three polyethylene co-polymer materials-Essix ACE, Duran, and Tru-Tain-exhibited significantly less wear than the polypropylene material, Essix C+. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:656-664.)

“…4,16,17 The purpose of the current study was to discern patients' opinions regarding responsibility for orthodontic retention and to determine associations between patient attitudes toward retention and perceptions of treatment success.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient attitudes toward retention and perceptions of treatment success

Mollov¹,

Lindauer²,

Best³

et al. 2010

Objective: To discern patients' opinions regarding responsibility for orthodontic retention and to determine whether patient attitudes toward retention are related to perceptions of treatment success. Materials and Methods: Questionnaires regarding orthodontic retention were distributed to firstyear undergraduate college students (n 5 158), first-year dental students (n 5 183), and retention patients at orthodontic offices (n 5 214). Items included treatment satisfaction, perceived responsibility for retention, type of retainer prescribed, reasons for discontinuing use of retainers, and relapse experienced. Results: Four hundred twenty-eight of 555 participants indicated that they had received orthodontic treatment. Most indicated they were either ''satisfied'' or ''very satisfied'' with their teeth, both at the end of treatment (96%) and currently (84%). There was a strong relationship between the perception of stability of tooth position and current satisfaction level (P , .0001). Most individuals (88%) indicated that they themselves were responsible for maintaining the alignment and fit of their teeth. Those who indicated that someone else was responsible were nearly twice as likely to be dissatisfied with their teeth (P 5 .0496). Patients who had been prescribed clear, invisible retainers were significantly more likely to be ''very satisfied'' currently (50%) compared to those with Hawley (35%) or permanently bonded (36%) retainers (P 5 .0002). Patients with Hawley retainers were significantly less likely to be wearing them currently as prescribed (45%) than those with invisible (65%) or bonded (68%) retainers (P , .0001). Conclusions: Satisfaction with orthodontic results after treatment is related to patient perceptions of responsibility for retention and perceived stability of tooth position. Patients should play a contributory role in formulating orthodontic retention plans. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:656-661.)