Patnaik P, Nanda SB, Mishra S. "Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg's retainer": a pilot study.
BMC Oral Health 2023;
23:266. [PMID:
37161557 PMCID:
PMC10169470 DOI:
10.1186/s12903-023-03010-1]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Accepted: 05/03/2023] [Indexed: 05/11/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Recently, Vacuum formed retainers (VFRs) are preferred as an Orthodontic retention appliance over conventional Begg's retainers. Very few studies have been conducted between VFRs and Begg's retainers. Hence, this study aims at assessing the effectiveness, oral hygiene and acceptability between VFRs and Begg's retainers with a follow up period of 1 year.
METHODS
Eighty patients who completed fixed Orthodontic treatment were included. Retainers were delivered on the same day of debonding. Retainer 1/ R1 stands for VFRs and Retainer 2/ R2 stands for Begg's retainers. The retainers were randomly allocated to both the arches. 40 VFRs and Begg's retainers in maxillary and mandibular arch were given respectively. Effectiveness, oral hygiene condition were performed at T0 (After debonding), T1 (3 months after using retainers), T2 (6 months after using retainers), T3 (9 months after using retainers), T4 (12 months after using retainers) follow up stages, except the feedback form and the breakage of retainers that were filled at T4 stage.
RESULTS
Both R1 and R2 retainers showed improvement in teeth alignment in both the arches at follow up stages. Interproximal contacts in maxillary and mandibular arch with VFRs and Begg's retainers improved to 77.5% and 82.5% respectively. Considering the marginal ridge, Begg's retainers and VFRs showed 95%, 55% increased proportion at T4 respectively (p < 0.05). Patients wearing Beggs's retainers had significantly better (p < 0.05) oral hygiene status. Significant differences were observed with Begg's retainers in teeth biting, whereas no significant difference was found with fitting of appliance (p = 0.180) and gingival irritation (p = 1.000). VFRs were well accepted aesthetically that was significant. Retainers were prone to breakage but was not significant (p = 0.162).
CONCLUSION
Begg's wrap around retainers maintain good oral hygiene, improve the teeth alignment, interproximal contact and marginal ridges post Orthodontic treatment with better fitting of the appliance. VFRs are also preferred as they are good in maintaining proper teeth alignment with progressive improvement in the interproximal contacts and are aesthetically pleasing.
Collapse