The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Discomfort caused by the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) as a removable maxillary retainer

상악 가철식 보정장치인 circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)에 대한 불편감 평가

  • Choi, Jin-Hugh (Department of Dentistry, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Cheol-Hyun (Department of Orthodontics, Gachon University Dental Hospital)
  • 최진휴 (중앙대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 문철현 (가천의과학대학교 길치과병원 교정과)
  • Received : 2010.05.03
  • Accepted : 2010.06.01
  • Published : 2010.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to illustrate the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) as a removable maxillary retainer with good potential patient compliance and to evaluate the discomfort of the retainers including distorted speech, gagging sensation and appliance discomfort. Methods: Sixty-six orthodontic patients (male, 23; female, 43; mean age, $23.42{\pm}10.19$ years) who received orthodontic treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances were randomly assigned to two groups after debonding, a conventional wraparound retainer (CWR) group that fully covers the palate with an acrylic plate and a highly polished surface, and a circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) group which has a horseshoe shaped base plate with three folds on the anterior region. A questionnaire that had a visual analog scale (VAS) which consists of a 100-mm horizontal line with 2 end-points labeled "no discomfort" on the left and "worst discomfort" on the right, with regard to distorted speech, gagging sensation and discomfort, was administered to patients after 4 weeks of retainer wear. The Mann-Whitney test was used to test the hypothesis that there was no difference between the two retainers. Results: Comparing distorted speech and discomfort, the CCR group significantly had lower values than the CWR group ($p$ < 0.05). Comparing gagging sensation, the CCR group had lower values than the CWR group but there were no statistically significant differences between groups ($p$ = 0.146). Conclusions: In conclusion, the results suggest that the circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR) might facilitate patient compliance and thereby improve the maintenance of the fixed orthodontic treatment outcome.

발음장애, 구토감 및 착용 불편감과 같은 보정장치에 대해 환자가 느끼는 불편감을 평가해보기 위해 고정식 교정장치로 교정치료를 받고 교정장치가 제거된 66명(남자 23명, 여자 43명; 평균연령 $23.42{\pm}10.19$)의 교정환자를 대상으로 무작위로 두 군으로 배정한 후 고정식 교정장치를 제거한 다음 날 CWR 장착군에게는 구개를 완전히 덮는 구개 완전 피개형 보정장치인 conventional wraparound retainer (CWR)를 장착시키고 CCR 장착군에게는 구개를 말 발굽 모양으로 부분 피개하는 보정장치인 circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)를 4주 동안 장착시킨 후 발음장애, 구토감 및 착용 불편감의 정도에 대해 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS)로 표시할 수 있도록 제작된 설문지를 통해 얻은 점수에 대해 통계적으로 비교 분석하였다. 연구결과 발음장애와 착용 불편감의 비교에서 CCR 장착군이 CWR 장착군에 비해 통계적으로 유의하게 낮았다 ($p$ < 0.05). 구토감의 비교에서는 CCR 장착군이 CWR 장착군에 비해 낮은 점수를 보였지만 통계적으로는 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다 ($p$ = 0.146). 이상의 연구 결과로 circumferential comfortable retainer (CCR)는 발음장애를 감소시키고, 착용 불편감을 완화시킴으로써 환자의 협조도를 증진시켜줄 수 있는바 고정식 교정장치를 이용한 교정치료 후 치료결과 유지에 도움이 될 수 있음을 시사하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Sheridan JJ. The three keys of retention. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:717-24.
  2. Hwang CJ. Analysis of characteristics of medical accidents and disputes in orthodontic area. Korean J Orthod 1999;29:1-22.
  3. Egolf RJ, BeGole EA, Upshaw HS. Factors associated with orthodontic patient compliance with intraoral elastic and headgear wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:336-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70106-M
  4. Oliver RG, Knapman YM. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1985;12:179-88. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.12.4.179
  5. Bartsch A, Witt E, Sahm G, Schneider S. Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:378-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81337-X
  6. Brattstrom V, Ingelsson M, Aberg E. Treatment co-operation in orthodontic patients. Br J Orthod 1991;18:37-42. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.18.1.37
  7. Stratton CS, Burkland GA. The effect of maxillary retainers on the clarity of speech. J Clin Orthod 1993;27:338-40.
  8. Moyers RE. Development of dentition and occlusion. In: Moyers RE editor. Handbook of orthodontics for the student and general practitioner. 3rd ed. Chicago, Ill: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1973. p. 175-92.
  9. Bishara SE. Oral lesions caused by an orthodontic retainer: a case report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:115-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70073-0
  10. Seymour RA, Simpson JM, Charlton JE, Phillips ME. An evaluation of length and end-phrase of visual analogue scales in dental pain. Pain 1987;21:177-85.
  11. Giannopoulou C, Dudic A, Kiliaridis S. Pain discomfort and crevicular fluid changes induced by orthodontic elastic separators in children. J Pain 2006;7:367-76.
  12. Kluemper GT, Hiser DG, Rayens MK, Jay MJ. Efficacy of a wax containing benzocaine in the relief of oral mucosal pain caused by orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:359-65. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.126405
  13. Bird SE, Williams K, Kula K. Preoperative acetaminophen vs ibuprofen for control of pain after orthodontic separator placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:504-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.11.019
  14. Joondeph DR. Retention and relapse. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL Jr, Vig KWL editors. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 4th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Mosby; 2005. p. 1123-51.
  15. Mills JR. A long-term assessment of the mechanical retroclination of lower incisors. Angle Orthod 1967;37:165-74.
  16. Moss JP. The soft tissue environment of teeth and jaws. An experimental and clinical study: part 1. Br J Orthod 1980;7:127-37. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.7.3.127
  17. Moss JP. The soft tissue environment of teeth and jaws. Experimental malocclusion: Parts 2 and 3. Br J Orthod 1980;7:205-16. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.7.4.205
  18. Reitan K. Clinical and histologic observations on tooth movement during and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1967;53:721-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(67)90118-2
  19. Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS 3rd. 1996 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, Part 1. Results and trends. J Clin Orthod 1996;30:615-29.
  20. Destang DL, Kerr WJ. Maxillary retention: is longer better? Eur J Orthod 2003;25:65-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/25.1.65
  21. Erb DP. Speech effects of the maxillary retainer. Angle Orthod 1967;37:298-303.
  22. Laine T. Articulatory disorders in speech as related to size of the alveolar arches. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:192-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/8.3.192
  23. Oliver RG, Evans SP. Tongue size, oral cavity size and speech. Angle Orthod 1986;56:234-43.
  24. Haydar B, Karabulut G, Ozkan S, Aksoy AU, Ciger S. Effects of retainers on the articulation of speech. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:535-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70062-8
  25. Reinicke C, Obijou N, Trankmann J. The palatal shape of upper removable appliances. Influence on the tongue position in swallowing. J Orofac Orthop 1998;59:202-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01579164
  26. Jones ML. An investigation into the initial discomfort caused by placement of an archwire. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:48-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/6.1.48

Cited by

  1. Users’ perceptions and preferences towards maxillary removable orthodontic retainers: a crossover randomized clinical trial vol.33, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0078