Comparison of Two Types of Lingual Fixed Retainer (Metal and Fiber)Fabricated by Using (CAD\CAM)Technique
الملخص
Aim: Comparison of durability, adhesive failure rates, refraction resistance, plaque index, gingivitis, and patient acceptance of metal cad cam retainers and those made of fiber with traditional lingual retainer
Material and Methods: 42 patients (14 patients per group) were selected and apply retainers (metal and fiber) made with cad cam were as study groups and traditional wire retainers as a control group. The brackets were protected with wax, then the alginate print was taken and sent to the laboratory, where he cast it and scanned it on the scanner, then made a design of the retainer with a height of 3.5 mm and a thickness of 1 mm, then milled, and then it was affixed to the lingual surfaces of the lower incisors using double-curing cement, and we studied the variables (durability rates of adhesive failure, refraction resistance, plaque index, gingivitis, and patient acceptability) per month over a 6-month period.
Results: The results of this study showed that the rates of adhesion failure were lower when using cad cam retainers. It also showed that the metal cad cam retainer was better in terms of fracture resistance. The use of cad cam retainers also improved oral health when studying the indicator of bacterial plaque and gingivitis. There was no significant difference in patients' acceptance between the cad cam fixators and the traditional wire fixators.
Conclusions: This clinical trial demonstrated the effectiveness of metal and fiber retainers manufactured using CAD CAM as a means of securing long-term fixation of mandibular incisors.
References
2. JOHNSTON, C. D. & LITTLEWOOD, S. J. 2015. Retention in orthodontics. Br Dent J, 218, 119-22.
3. Proffit William, R. (2006). Contemporary Orthodontics/William R. Proffit, Henry W. Fields Jr., David M. Sarver, Philadelphia :Elsevier Health Sciences
4. KNIERIM, R. W. (1973). "Invisible lower cuspid to cuspid retainer." The angle orthodontist 43(2): 218-219
5. Kučera J, Littlewood SJ, Marek I. Fixed retention: pitfalls and complications. British dental journal. 2021;230(11):703-8.
6. Sheridan, J. (1988). "Incremental removal of bonded lingual retainers." Journal of clinical orthodontics: JCO 22(2): 116-117.
7. - Melrose, C. and D. T. Millett (1998). "Toward a perspective on orthodontic retention?" Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113(5): 507-514.
8. Rinchuse, D. J., P. G. Miles and J. J. Sheridan (2007). "Orthodontic retention and stability: a clinical perspective." Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 41(3): 125.
9. Maleeh, I., J. Robinson and S. Wadhwa (2016). Role of alveolar bone in mediating orthodontic tooth movement and relapse. Biology of Orthodontic Tooth Movement, Springer: 1-12.
10. Little, R. M., R. A. Riedel and J. Artun (1988). "An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 93(5): 423-428.
11. LITTLEWOOD, S. J., KANDASAMY, S. & HUANG, G. 2017. Retention
and relapse in clinical practice. Aust Dent J, 62 Suppl 1, 51-57.
12. Hichens, L., H. Rowland, A. Williams, S. Hollinghurst, P. Ewings, S. Clark, A. Ireland and J. Sandy (2007). "Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers." The European Journal of Orthodontics 29(4): 372-378.
13. R.Proffit, w., J. Henry W.Fields and D. M.Sarver (2007). CONTEMPORARY ORTHODONTICS.
14. Littlewood SJ, Dalci O, Dolce C, Holliday LS, Naraghi S. Orthodontic retention: what's on the horizon? British dental journal. 2021;230(11):760-4.
15. Hahn, G. W. (1944). "Retention–the stepchild of orthodontia." The Angle Orthodontist 14(1): 3-12.
16. Blake, M. and K. Bibby (1998). "Retention and stability: a review of the literature." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 114(3): 299-306.
