Orthodontic retainers: Analysis of prescriptions sent to laboratories

Admin Dental Press

Edition V17N02 | Year 2012 | Editorial Original Article | Pages 184 to 189

Washington Komatsu Assumpção , George Kenji Bezerra Ota , Rívea Inês Ferreira , Flávio Augusto Cotrim-ferreira

Objective: To investigate the most commonly fabricated orthodontic retainers. Methods: Information on the type and amount of maxillary and mandibular retainers produced in a three-month period was collected from six laboratories (in the cities of São Paulo, Mauá and Guarulhos). The retainers were grouped according to the total production. For the maxillary arch, the groups were: 1S – Begg retainer, 2S – Hawley retainer, 3S – transpalatal arch retainer, 4S – buccal resin-arch retainer, and 5S – vacuum-formed retainer, Planas appliance, bonded lingual retainer and V-loop bonded lingual retainer. The groups relative to the mandibular arch were: 1I – 3-3 bonded lingual retainer (canine-to-canine), 2I – Hawley retainer and V-loop bonded lingual retainer, 3I – Begg retainer, 4I – buccal resin-arch retainer, vacuum-formed retainer and Planas appliance. The data were presented in box plots. Groups were compared using the Student’s t-test with Bonferroni correction. Results: The average of maxillary appliances fabricated ranged from 189.5 (1S) to 3.95 (5S). There were significant differences between groups 1S versus 5S and 2S versus 5S (p < 0.0001). Mean values for the mandibular retainers ranged from 55.3 (1I) to 4.2 (4I). Significant difference was observed between groups 2I and 4I (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: For the maxillary arch, the most requested retainers were Begg and Hawley retainers. Regarding the mandibular arch, bonded lingual retainers and Hawley retainer were the most frequent ones. Orthodontics, Corrective, Orthodontic appliances, Relapse,

Related articles