The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 4 ( 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Stability of the Results of Orthodontic Treatment and Gingival Health between Hawley and Vacuum-formed Retainers

Aydin Sohrabi, Seyed H Moslemzadeh, Ali Rafighi, Somaieh Farshidnia

Keywords : American Board of Orthodontics model grading system, American Board of Orthodontics objective frading system, Gingival index, Hawley retainers, Vacuum-formed retainers

Citation Information : Sohrabi A, Moslemzadeh SH, Rafighi A, Farshidnia S. Comparison of Stability of the Results of Orthodontic Treatment and Gingival Health between Hawley and Vacuum-formed Retainers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (4):443-449.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2281

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-04-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: Retention is one of the stages of orthodontic treatment, which is an attempt to retain teeth in their corrected positions after active treatment with the use of fixed orthodontic appliances. The aim of the present study was to compare the stability of the results of orthodontic treatment and the gingival health between Hawley retainer (HR) and vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) with two different thicknesses. Materials and methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 66 patients undergoing comprehensive orthodontic treatment in a private office were evaluated after completion of treatment. The subjects were randomly assigned to three groups. At the end of orthodontic treatment, the subjects in all the groups received a fixed bonded retainer in the mandible; in the maxilla, group I received an HR, group II received a VFR with a thickness of 1.5 mm, and group III received a VFR with a thickness of 1 mm. The American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) index was used at the end of treatment (before the delivery of the retainers) and 6 months after the use of retainers to evaluate the stability of the results of orthodontic treatment. Gingival index (GI) was used at the two above-mentioned intervals to evaluate gingival health. The ABO-OGS measurements were carried out on dental casts by a clinician who was blinded to the types of retainers the patients wore. Data were analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20, using proper statistical analyses. Results: Six months after the delivery of retainers, ABO-OGS and GI scores with the 1.5 mm VFR were higher than those in the two other groups, with no significant differences between the three groups. There were no significant differences between the ABO-OGS scores before the delivery of retainers and 6 months after the use of retainers in any of the study groups. In the HR and 1.5 mm VFR groups, there were significant differences in GI scores between the period before the delivery of the retainers and 6 months after their delivery; however, in the 1 mm VFR group, no significant differences were observed in GI scores between the two time intervals. Conclusion: Hawley retainer and 1 mm thick and 1.5 mm thick VFRs were equally effective in preserving and stabilizing the results of orthodontic treatment during the 6-month interval after the completion of orthodontic treatment. In addition, there were no significant differences between the three retainers in relation to gingival health. Clinical significance: The VFR might be a good alternative for HR due to its better esthetic appearance and greater popularity with orthodontic patients.


PDF Share
  1. Raja TA, Littlewood SJ, Munyombwe T, Bubb NL. Wear resistance of four types of vacuum-formed retainer materials: a laboratory study. Angle Orthod 2014 Jul;84(4):656-664.
  2. Littlewood S, Millett D, Doubleday B, Bearn D, Worthington H, Sampson WJ. Retention procedures for stabilizing tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Aust Dent J 2016 Jan;51:94-95.
  3. Barlin S, Smith R, Reed R, Sandy J, Ireland AJ. A retrospective randomized double-blind comparison study of the effectiveness of Hawley vs vacuum-formed retainers. Angle Orthod 2011 May;81(3):404-409.
  4. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. pp. 150-210.
  5. Bibona K, Shroff B, Best AM, Lindauer SJ. Factors affecting orthodontists’ management of the retention phase. Angle Orthod 2014 Mar;84(2):225-230.
  6. Bauer EM, Behrents R, Oliver DR, Buschang PH. Posterior occlusion changes with a Hawley vs perfector and Hawley retainer. A follow-up study. Angle Orthod 2010 Sep;80(5):853-860.
  7. Demir A, Babacan H, Nalcacý R, Topcuoglu T. Comparison of retention characteristics of essix and Hawley retainers. Korean J Orthod 2012 Oct;42(5):255-262.
  8. Sauget E, Covell DA Jr, Boero RP, Lieber WS. Comparison of occlusal contacts with use of Hawley and clear overlay retainers. Angle Orthod 1997;67(3):223-230.
  9. Heier EE, De Smit AA, Wijgaerts IA, Adriaens PA. Periodontal implications of bonded versus removable retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997 Dec;112(6):607-616.
  10. Torkan S, Oshagh M, Khojastepour L, Shahidi S, Heidari S. Clinical and radiographic comparison of the effects of two types of fixed retainers on periodontium—a randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod 2014 Aug;15:47.
  11. Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod 1997 Oct;19(5):501-509.
  12. Sun J, Yu Y, Liu M, Chen L, Li H, Zhang L, Zhou Y, Ao D, Tao R, Lai WL. Survival time comparison between Hawley and clear overlay retainers: A randomized trial. J Dent Res 2011 Oct;90(10):1197-1201.
  13. Löe H. The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontol 1967 Nov-Dec;38(6):610-616.
  14. Rebelo MA, De Queiroz AC. Gingival indices: State of art. IN TECH; 2011.
  15. Wei SH, Lang KP. Periodontal epidemiological indices for children and adolescents: I. Gingival and periodontal health assessments. Pediatr Dent 1981 Dec;3(4):353-360.
  16. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Bills ED. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998 Nov;114(5):589-599.
  17. Mai W, He J, Meng H, Jiang Y, Huang C, Li M, Yuan K, Kang N. Comparison of vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014 Jun;145(6):720-727.
  18. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A, Hills D, Killingback N, Ewings P, Clark S, Ireland AJ, Sandy JR. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007 Dec;132(6):730-737.
  19. Qanber Agha RA, Ghaib NH. Relapse during retention with Hawley and clear overlay retainers in Iraqi adults. Iraqi Orthod J 2005;1(2):10-12.
  20. Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Lindstrom AF. Patient compliance with orthodontic retainers in the postretention phase. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011 Aug;140(2):196-201.
  21. Mirzakouchaki B, Shirazi S, Sharghi R, Shirazi S. Assessment of factors affecting adolescent patients’ compliance with Hawley and vacuum formed retainers. J Clin Diagn Res 2016 Jun;10(6):ZC24-ZC27.
  22. Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A, Hollinghurst S, Ewings P, Clark S, Ireland A, Sandy J. Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Eur J Orthod 2007 Aug;29(4):372-378.
  23. Wan J, Wang T, Pei X, Wan Q, Feng W, Chen J. Speech effects of hawley and vacuum-formed retainers by acoustic analysis: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 2017 Mar;87(2):286-292.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.