The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Failure Rates of Orthodontic Fixed Lingual Retainers bonded with Two Flowable Light-cured Adhesives: A Comparative Prospective Clinical Trial

Nabeel F Talic

Citation Information : Talic NF. Failure Rates of Orthodontic Fixed Lingual Retainers bonded with Two Flowable Light-cured Adhesives: A Comparative Prospective Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (8):630-634.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1902

Published Online: 01-08-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

This comparative prospective randomized clinical trial examined the in vivo failure rates of fixed mandibular and maxillary lingual retainers bonded with two light-cured flowable composites over 6 months.

Materials and methods

Consecutive patients were divided into two groups on a 1:1 basis. Two hundred fixed lingual retainers were included, and their failures were followed for 6 months. One group (n = 50) received retainers bonded with a nano-hybrid composite based on nano-optimized technology (Tetric-N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent). Another group (n = 50) received retainers bonded with a low viscosity (LV) composite (Transbond Supreme LV, 3M Unitek).

Results

There was no significant difference between the overall failure rates of mandibular retainers bonded with Transbond (8%) and those bonded with Tetric-N-Flow (18%). However, the odds ratio for failure using Tetric-N-flow was 2.52-fold greater than that of Transbond. The failure rate of maxillary retainers bonded with Transbond was higher (14%), but not significantly different, than that of maxillary retainers bonded with Tetric- N-flow (10%). There was no significant difference in the estimated mean survival times of the maxillary and mandibular retainers bonded with the two composites.

Conclusion

Both types of composites tested in the current study can be used to bond fixed maxillary and mandibular lingual retainers, with low failure rates.

How to cite this article

Talic NF. Failure Rates of Orthodontic Fixed Lingual Retainers bonded with Two Flowable Light-cured Adhesives: A Comparative Prospective Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(8):630-634.


PDF Share
  1. The invisible lower cuspid to cuspid retainer. Angle Orthod 1973 Apr;43(2):298-303.
  2. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod 1977 Apr;71(4):440-448.
  3. In vivo orthodontic retainer survival – a review. Clujul Med 2015;88(3):298-303.
  4. Orthodontic bonded retainers. J Ir Dent Assoc 2005 Spring;51(1):29-32.
  5. Clinical evaluation of bond failures and survival between mandibular canine-to-canine retainers made of flexible spiral wire and fiber-reinforced composite. J Clin Exp Dent 2014 Apr 1;6(2):e145-e149.
  6. Comparison of survival time between two types of orthodontic fixed retainer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod 2013 Sep 11;14:25.
  7. Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: a comparison between glass fiber-reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int Orthod 2012 Mar;10(1):16-28.
  8. Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 years prospective multi-centre study. Eur J Orthod 2010 Apr;32(2):117-123.
  9. Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or photo polymerization over a 2-year period: a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013 Aug;144(2):169-175.
  10. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod 2012 Aug;34(4):470-474.
  11. Survival of flexible, braided, bonded stainless steel lingual retainers: a historic cohort study. Eur J Orthod 2008 Apr;30(2):199-204.
  12. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a singlecenter randomized controlled trial comparing placement time and failure over a 6-month period. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014 Dec;146(6):701-708.
  13. A prospective randomized study of different retainer types. J Orofac Orthop 2002 Jan;63(1):42-50.
  14. Effects of fast halogen and plasma arc curing lights on the surface hardness of orthodontic adhesives for lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003 Jun;123(6):641-648.
  15. A comparative evaluation of lingual retainer failure bonded with or without liquid resin. Angle Orthod 2012 Jan;82(1):84-87.
  16. The effect of bonded resin surface area on the detachment force of lingual bonded fixed retainers: an in vitro study. Korean J Orthod 2014 Jan;44(1):20-27.
  17. A chairside bonded lingual retainer. J Clin Orthod 1997 Jun;31(6):358-360.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.