Periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers: 0.032-in SS V-loop versus 0.0215-in SS coaxial — a randomized crossover trial

0Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: This randomized crossover trial evaluated periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers (a modified 0.032-in SS V-loop retainer and a conventional 0.0215-in SS coaxial wire retainer) after bonded for six months. Also, bonded failure rate, and a questionnaire about comfort, ease of cleaning and overall preference were recorded. Material and Methods: 15 patients were enrolled in this study who used both retainers for six months each, having a 15-day wash-out interval between each bonded retainer usage. The following periodontal index were recorded: Plaque Index (PI), Calculus Index (CI) and Gingival Index (GI). Patients answered a questionnaire to assess comfort, ease of cleaning and overall retainer-type preference. Rate of bonding failure was also evaluated. Results: V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (P<0.05) as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer. However, CI and GI presented no statistically significant differences between both types of retainers. The conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer was chosen as the most comfortable (p<0.05), although no statistically significant differences were found for all other questionnaire answers. Bonding failure events were more observed in the 3x3 V-Loop retainer (p<0.002), as compared to the conventional 0.0215-in coaxial retainer. Conclusion: V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (p<0.05), higher bonding failure rate and less comfortable, as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sapata, D. M., de OLIVEIRA E SILVA, C., Pascotto, R. C., Poleti, T. M. F. F., Arai, M. S. I., & Ramos, A. L. (2023). Periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers: 0.032-in SS V-loop versus 0.0215-in SS coaxial — a randomized crossover trial. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 28(6). https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.28.6.e2323175.oar

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