Level of satisfaction in the use of the wraparound Hawley and thermoplastic maxillary retainers

Assessment of patients' knowledge and preferences for the use of orthodontic aligners

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the knowledge and preference of patients treated at a Dental School in Jaraguá do Sul, Brazil, about using aligners and the reasons for choosing this device as a treatment option.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 82 participants aged 18-45 years recruited at a screening clinic.

METHODS

A questionnaire was completed in person using a tablet with digital forms.

RESULTS

Almost half of the participants (49%) knew about aligners; 40% were aged 18-24 years, and 77% were female. When observing the images of the types of orthodontic appliances, the aligners had an acceptance rate of 80%. Among the reasons that led to the preference for choosing aligners, 68% cited aesthetics and 42% comfort.

CONCLUSION

Recently, clear aligners have become a popular choice for orthodontic treatment, particularly among adults. Despite their popularity and effectiveness, many patients still need more information about aligner treatment. Over half of the respondents did not know what orthodontic aligners were. Younger participants had more knowledge about aligners than older participants. Patients still need more knowledge about the types of appliances available for orthodontic treatment. When presented with images of the kinds of devices available, almost 80% of participants showed greater satisfaction with aligners.

Occlusal Contact Surface Changes and Occlusal Force Distribution Between Vacuum-Formed Retainers and Other Retainers: A Systematic Review

The present systematic review was done to assess the available literatures on changes in the number of occlusal contacts (NOC), occlusal contact surface areas, and occlusal force distribution (OFD) with vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) or clear overlay retainers during retention and to compare them with other retainers. Six electronic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and Google Scholar) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reporting on occlusal contact changes with VFRs were included. A total of nine articles were included in this review: three RCTs, five prospective controlled trials (PCTs), and one CCT. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS-I tool were used for risk of bias assessment. The three RCTs showed moderate risk of bias, and out of five CCTs, four showed low risk of bias, and one showed moderate risk of bias. One CCT showed a low risk of bias in the ROBINS-I tool. Two out of four studies reported improved occlusal surface area (OSA) with VFRs when assessed at the end of six months and 12 months; one out of four studies reported improved NOC; and one study reported a decrease in OFD anteriorly and an increase in OFD posteriorly after two months of retention. On comparison between the groups, the other retainer groups showed more NOCs compared to VFRs. The limited available evidence suggests an increase in OSA and no change in NOCs and OFD with VFRs during retention. No significant differences between VFRs and other retainers for OSA and OFD were noted, and more NOCs were noted for other retainer groups.

A survey of patient compliance with removable orthodontic retainer wear in Brunei Darussalam

OBJECTIVE

To explore compliance with removable orthodontic retainer wear among patients who had completed fixed appliance orthodontic treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to patients who had completed orthodontic treatment at the government orthodontic clinics. The response rate was 54.9%, 663 questionnaires were distributed and 364 responses were received. Demographic information was collected, and questions regarding types of retainers prescribed, instructed and actual wear times, satisfaction levels, and reasons for wearing and not wearing retainers. Chi Square, Fisher's Exact tests and Independent T-Test were used to detect significant associations between variables.

RESULTS

Respondents under 20 years old and employed were the most compliant. The mean satisfaction levels of Hawley Retainer and Vacuum-Formed Retainer were reported to be 3.7 (P = 0.565). About 28% of those in both groups stated that they wear them to maintain their teeth straight. 32.7% of Hawley retainer wearers reported not wearing their retainers due to speech difficulties.

CONCLUSION

Age and employment status were the variables that determined compliance. There was no significant difference in the satisfaction levels between the two retainer types. Most respondents wear their retainers to keep their teeth straight. Discomfort and forgetfulness were the primary reasons for not wearing retainers, besides speech difficulties.

Does simultaneous versus individual-arch at-home dental bleaching regimen influence patient satisfaction? A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Our randomized, parallel and single-blinded clinical trial evaluated patient level of discomfort during at-home bleaching testing the equivalence between two different protocols for the use of bleaching trays (simultaneous vs. single arch), as well as tooth sensitivity (TS), gingival irritation, (GI) and bleaching efficacy (BE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We randomized 100 patients into: simultaneous (n = 50) and single arch (n = 50). At-home bleaching was performed with 10% hydrogen peroxide (HP) for 2 weeks for simultaneous group and 4 weeks for single arch group. We assessed patient level of discomfort using 9-item questionnaire. The TS and GI, as well as BE using spectrophotometer and color guide were assessed using the visual analog scale (0-10). Data from level of discomfort and BE were evaluated by Student's t test. The TS and GI were compared using the relative risk and confidence interval (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Only tray adaptation showed a significant effect after the second week (p < 0.002). There was equivalence between groups for level of discomfort (p < 0.01). We found no significant intergroup differences for the risk of TS or GI, nor for intensity. We observed no significant differences between them regarding bleaching efficacy (p > 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

A simultaneous-use protocol for customized at-home dental bleaching trays proved to be equivalent to using single arch for patient level of discomfort and bleaching efficacy, with no significant increase in adverse effects.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians may decide whether to use a simultaneous or single arch protocol for tray usage; however, bleaching was achieved more quickly when the trays were worn simultaneously.

[The quality of life of patients after orthodontic treatment depending on the use of different types of retention appliances]

AIM

To assess the impact of the type of retention device on the quality of life of orthodontic patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

311 patients were divided into four groups according to age. At the end of active orthodontic treatment, retainers were installed. After 6 months, a questionnaire was conducted using the standard OHIP-14 questionnaire in order to identify the attitude to the equipment used, the presence or absence of relapses and satisfaction with the state of the dental system.

RESULTS

The number of relapses in all groups is approximately at the same level, which indicates almost equal opportunities for retainers to retain the achieved result. There is no correlation between the convenience of using a particular type of retainer and the willingness to do so.

CONCLUSION

The motivation of patients to use removable or non-removable retention devices to a certain extent depends not only on the type of retainer, but also on the age at which the treatment was performed.