The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers

  • Demir, Abdullah (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University) ;
  • Babacan, Hasan (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cumhuriyet University) ;
  • Nalcaci, Ruhi (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suleyman Demirel University) ;
  • Topcuoglu, Tolga (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University)
  • Received : 2012.03.19
  • Accepted : 2012.05.31
  • Published : 2012.10.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to compare the retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. Methods: Adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment at 2 centers were recruited for this study. Twenty-two patients (16 women and 6 men) wore Essix retainers (Essix group) while 20 (14 women and 6 men) wore Hawley retainers (Hawley group). The mean retention time was 1 year, and the mean follow-up recall time for both groups was 2 years. Two qualified dental examiners evaluated the blind patient data. Maxillary and mandibular dental casts and lateral cephalograms were analyzed at 4 stages: pretreatment (T1), post-treatment (T2), post-retention (T3), and follow-up (T4). Results: The results revealed that Essix appliances were more efficient in retaining the anterior teeth in the mandible during a 1-year retention period. The irregularity index increased in both arches in both groups after a 2-year post-retention period. The mandibular arch lengths increased during treatment and tended to return to their original value after retention in both groups; however, these changes were statistically significant only in the Hawley group. Cephalometric variables did not show any significant differences. Conclusions: The retention characteristics of both Essix and Hawley retainers are similar.

Keywords

References

  1. Moyers RE. Handbook of orthodontics for the student and general practitioner. 3rd ed. Chicago, London, Boca Raton: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1973.
  2. Hawley CA. A removable retainer. Int J Orthod Oral Surg 1919;2:291-8.
  3. Sheridan JJ, Ledoux W, Mcminn R. Essix retainers: fabrication and supervision for permanent retention. J Clin Orthod 1993;27:37-45.
  4. Proffit WR. Retention. In: Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, eds. Contemporary orthodontics. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1993. p. 617-31.
  5. Reitan K. Principles of retention and avoidance of posttreatment relapse. Am J Orthod 1969;55:776-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(69)90050-5
  6. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:207-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70085-4
  7. Haydar B, Karabulut G, Ozkan S, Aksoy AU, Ciğer 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
  8. Başçiftçi FA, Uysal T, Sari Z, Inan O. Occlusal contacts with different retention procedures in 1-year follow-up period. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:357-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.05.052
  9. Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A, Hollinghurst S, Ewings P, Clark S, et al. Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:372-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm039
  10. Sauget E, Covell DA Jr, Boero RP, Lieber WS. Comparison of occlusal contacts with use of Hawley and clear overlay retainers. Angle Orthod 1997;67:223-30.
  11. Lindauer SJ, Shoff RC. Comparison of Essix and Hawley retainers. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:95-7.
  12. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A, Hills D, Killingback N, Ewings P, et al. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:730-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.019
  13. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90086-X
  14. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications;1940.
  15. Joondeph DR. Retention and relapse. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL Jr, eds. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2000. p. 985-1012.
  16. Bayram M, Ozer M. Mandibular incisor extraction treatment of a class I malocclusion with bolton discrepancy: a case report. Eur J Dent 2007;1:54-9.
  17. Ledvinka J. Vacuum-formed retainers more effective than Hawley retainers. Evid Based Dent 2009;10:47. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400650
  18. 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;81:404-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/072610-437.1
  19. Taner TU, Haydar B, Kavuklu I, Korkmaz A. Shortterm effects of fiberotomy on relapse of anterior crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118:617-23. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.110637
  20. Little RM, Wallen TR, Riedel RA. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment-first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981;80:349-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(81)90171-8
  21. Sadowsky C, Sakols EI. Long-term assessment of orthodontic relapse. Am J Orthod 1982;82:456-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90312-8
  22. Little RM, Riedel RA, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orothod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:423-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90102-3
  23. Shapiro PA. Mandibular dental arch form and dimension. Treatment and postretention changes. Am J Orthod 1974;66:58-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(74)90193-6
  24. Glenn G, Sinclair PM, Alexander RG. Nonextraction orthodontic therapy: posttreatment dental and skeletal stability. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:321-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90333-7
  25. Melrose C, Millett DT. Toward a perspective on orthodontic retention? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:507-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70261-6
  26. Edman Tynelius G, Bondemark L, Lilja-karlander E. Evaluation of orthodontic treatment after 1 year of retention--a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:542-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp145
  27. Al Yami EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van't Hof MA. Stability of orthodontic treatment outcome: follow-up until 10 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:300-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70333-1
  28. Yavari J, Shrout MK, Russell CM, Haas AJ, Hamilton EH. Relapse in Angle Class II Division 1 Malocclusion treated by tandem mechanics without extraction of permanent teeth: A retrospective analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:34-42. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.104409
  29. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: a systematic review. J Orthod 2006;33:205-12. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021624
  30. Atack N, Harradine N, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ. Which way forward? Fixed or removable lower retainers. Angle Orthod 2007;77:954-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/103106-449.1

Cited by

  1. Comparison of the effects of different retention appliances on the oxidant-antioxidant system vol.30, pp.15, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1157433
  2. Retenedores fijos en ortodoncia. Revisión sistemática vol.28, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfo.v28n1a8
  3. Speech effects of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers by acoustic analysis: A single-center randomized controlled trial vol.87, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.2319/012716-76.1
  4. Clear retainer vol.7, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-1407.199173
  5. An Innovative Approach to Retention: Thermoplastic Retainer vol.18, pp.7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2086
  6. Acceptability comparison between Hawley retainers and vacuum-formed retainers in orthodontic adult patients: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial vol.39, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx024
  7. A Polysaccharide-Based Antibacterial Coating with Improved Durability for Clear Overlay Appliances vol.10, pp.21, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.8b04433
  8. Comparison of Stability of the Results of Orthodontic Treatment and Gingival Health between Hawley and Vacuum-formed Retainers vol.19, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2281
  9. Digital Workflow for Indirect Bonding with 2D Lingual Brackets: A Case Report and Procedure Description vol.2019, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6936049
  10. Comparing retainers constructed on conventional stone models and on 3D printed models: a randomized crossover clinical study vol.41, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy063
  11. Mandibular alignment changes after full-fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis vol.41, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz004
  12. ORTHODONTIST CLINICAL EXPERIENCE AND CLINICAL SITUATION SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE THE RETENTION PROTOCOL – A SURVEY FROM CROATIA vol.59, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2020.59.01.01
  13. The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers—Our Clinical Experience vol.7, pp.12, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/children7120295
  14. Computerized Assessment of Occlusion and Muscle Activity during Use of a Multilayer Clear Retainer: A Preliminary Study vol.21, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/s21020541
  15. Removable orthodontic retainers: practical considerations vol.230, pp.11, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2893-3
  16. Assessment of the effect of vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers on periodontal health: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.16, pp.7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253968