Effects of fixed retainers on gingival recession–a 10-year retrospective study

7Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: The aetiology of gingival recessions is not fully understood, and no evidence has yet emerged of a single predisposing factor that instigates this apical shift of the gingival margin. Nonetheless, both fixed retainers and orthodontic treatment have been cited as potential risk factors. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of orthodontic treatment and orthodontic fixed retainers on gingival recessions. Subjects and methods: In total, 105 patients at the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Gothenburg who had undergone orthodontic treatment between 1995 − 2003 were included in this study. Intraoral photographs of the anterior segment and study casts acquired at baseline (pre-treatment), post-treatment and at the 10-year follow-up were used as recorded measurements of gingival recession and orthodontic treatment. At the 10-year follow-up, the patients were divided into two groups based on: long-term (10 years) presence of a fixed retainer [orthodontic treatment and retainer (OR) group; N = 76]; and short-term (<5 years) presence of a fixed retainer [orthodontic treatment (O) group; N = 57]. These groups were compared to a control group (C) of untreated subjects (N = 29). Results: In the anterior segment, gingival recessions were not present at baseline and post-treatment between the two orthodontically treated groups. At the 10-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between the two orthodontically treated groups and the controls. Conclusions: Orthodontic treatment per se does not increase the risk for gingival recessions, nor does the use of fixed retainers following orthodontic treatment.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Khalil, R., Walladbegi, J., & Westerlund, A. (2023). Effects of fixed retainers on gingival recession–a 10-year retrospective study. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 81(3), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2022.2118164

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