SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.17 número2Effectiveness of CO2 laser in removal of papillary gingival hyperplasiaRisk variables of external apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO

Compartilhar


Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics

versão On-line ISSN 2176-9451

Resumo

ASSUMPCAO, Washington Komatsu; OTA, George Kenji Bezerra; FERREIRA, Rívea Inês  e  COTRIM-FERREIRA, Flávio Augusto. Orthodontic retainers: analysis of prescriptions sent to laboratories. Dental Press J. Orthod. [online]. 2012, vol.17, n.2, pp. 36.e1-36.e6. ISSN 2176-9451.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512012000200007.

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 - Brazil. 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.

Palavras-chave : Orthodontics; Corrective; Orthodontic appliances; Relapse.

        · texto em Inglês     · pdf em Inglês