Comparação de parâmetros periodontais após utilização de contenção ortodôntica com fio trançado e contenção modificada

5Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare two types of fixed orthodontic retainers (a multi-stranded wire retainer and a modified retainer) in relation to established periodontal parameters. The multi-stranded wire retainer is commonly used, and the modified retainer has bends to enable free access of dental floss to interproximal areas. Materials and Methods: For this crossover study, 12 volunteers were selected and used the following retainers for six months: (A) a multi-stranded wire retainer and (B) a modified retainer, both fixed to all anterior lower teeth. After this experimental period, the following evaluations were made: Dental Plaque Index, Gingival Index, Dental Calculus Index and Retainer Wire Calculus Index. The volunteers also responded to a questionnaire about the use, comfort and hygiene of the retainers. Results: The plaque index and the gingival index were higher on the lingual surfaces (p<0.05) for the modified retainer. Furthermore, the calculus index was statistically higher (p<0.05) for the lingual and proximal faces when using the modified retainer. The retainer wire calculus index values were also significantly higher (p<0.05) for the modified retainer. In the questionnaire, 58% of the volunteers considered the modified retainer to be less comfortable and 54% of them preferred the multi-stranded wire retainer. Conclusion: The multi-stranded wire retainer showed better results than the modified retainer according to the periodontal parameters evaluated, as well as providing greater comfort and being the retainer preferred by the volunteers.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lukiantchuki, M. A., Hayacibara, R. M., & Ramos, A. L. (2011). Comparação de parâmetros periodontais após utilização de contenção ortodôntica com fio trançado e contenção modificada. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512011000400009

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free