Comparison of Two Retention Appliances with Respect to Clinical Effectiveness in preventing Relapse
Keywords:
N/AAbstract
OBJECTIVE:
This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers during the orthodontic retention phase.
Methods:
Thirty subjects who completed fixed orthodontic treatment were evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III Objective Grading System. After appliance removal, participants were randomly assigned to either upper-lower Essix or upper-lower Hawley retainer protocols. All subjects wore their retainers full-time for 6 months (except during meals), then nights-only for another 6 months. Clinical effectiveness was assessed by measuring overjet, overbite, maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths, intermolar widths, arch lengths, irregularity indexes, and lateral cephalometric parameters at three time points: pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention. All measurements were performed by the same investigator.
Results:
No statistically significant differences were found between the Essix and Hawley groups in overjet, overbite, intercanine widths, intermolar widths, arch lengths, or lateral cephalometric measurements across all time points. Both groups showed a slight, non-significant increase in maxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes from post-treatment to post-retention.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Melrose C, Millett DT. Toward a perspective on orthodontic retention? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 507-14. [CrossRef]
Manzon L, Fratto G, Rossi E, Buccheri A. Periodontal health and compliance: A comparison between Essix and Hawley retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153: 852-60. [CrossRef]
Luther F, Nelson-Moon Z, editors. Orthodontic retainers and removable appliances: Principles of design and use. Oxford-UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod 1977; 71: 440-8. [CrossRef]
Hoybjerg AJ, Currier GF, Kadioğlu O. Evaluation of 3 retention protocols using the American Board of Orthodontics cast and radiograph evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 16-22. [CrossRef]
Ramazanzadeh B, Ahrari F, Hosseini ZS. The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols. J Clin Exp Dent 2018; 10: 224-31. [CrossRef]
Swidi AJ, Taylor RW, Tadlock LP, Buschang PH. Recent advances in orthodontic retention methods: A review article. J World Fed Orthod 2018; 7: 6-12. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 29: CD002283. [CrossRef]
Al Rahma WJ, Kaklamanos EG, Athanasiou AE. Performance of Hawley-type retainers: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Orthod 2018; 40: 115-25. [CrossRef]
Valladares-Neto J, Evangelista K, Miranda de Torres H, Melo Pithon M, Alves Garcia Santos Silva M. A 22-year follow-up of the nonsurgical expansion of maxillary and mandibular arches in a young adult: Are the outcomes stable, relapsed, or unstable with aging? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150: 521-32. [CrossRef]
Proffit WR. Retention. In: Proffit WR, Fields H, Sarver D, editors. Contemporary Orthodontics. Mosby: Elsevier; 2012. p.606-16.
Al-Moghrabi D, Pandis N, Fleming PS. The effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers: A systematic review. Prog Orthod 2016; 17: 24. [CrossRef]
Mai W, He J, Meng H, Jiang Y, Huang C, Li M, et al. Comparison of vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 720-7. [CrossRef]
Meade MJ, Millett D. Retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers among specialist orthodontists. J Orthod 2013; 40: 318-25. [CrossRef]
Moslemzadeh SH, Sohrabi A, Rafighi A, Ghojazadeh M, Rahmanian S. Comparison of survival time of Hawley and Vacuum-formed retainers in orthodontic patients - a randomized clinical trial. ABCMed 2017; 5: 7-15. [CrossRef]
Padmos JAD, Fudalej PS, Renkema AM. Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153: 496-504. [CrossRef]
Shawesh M, Bhatti B, Usmani T, Mandall N. Hawley retainers full- or part-time? A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 165-70. [CrossRef]
Sheridan JJ, LeDoux W, McMinn R. Essix retainers: fabrication and supervision for permanent retention. J Clin Orthod 1993; 27: 37-45.
Demir A, Babacan H, Nalcacı R, Topcuoglu T. Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. Korean J Orthod 2012; 42: 255-62. [CrossRef]
Little RM. The irregularity index: a Quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975; 68: 554-63. [CrossRef]
Moslemzadeh SH, Sohrabi A, 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: 443-9. [CrossRef]
Huth J, Staley RN, Jacobs R, Bigelow H, Jakobsen J. Arch widths in class II-2 adults compared to adults class I-1 and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 837-44. [CrossRef]
Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Craniofacial structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 366-72. [CrossRef]
Zhu Y, Lin J, Long H, Ye N, Huang R, Yang X, et al. Comparison of survival time and comfort between 2 clear overlay retainers with different thicknesses: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151: 433-9. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
Xu XC, Li RM, Tang GH. Clinical evaluation of lingual fixed retainer combined with hawley retainer and vacuum-formed retainer. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2011; 20: 623-6.
Dindaroglu F. Is retention necessary? Türkiye Klinikleri J Orthod-Special Topics 2017; 3: 73-8.
Barlin S, Smith R, Reed R, Sandy J, Ireland AJ. A retrospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing the effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(3):404–409. [CrossRef]
Babacan H, Bıçakcı AA, Doruk C, Demir A. The effects of Essix and Hawley retention appliances on relapse of mandibular anterior crowding. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2002;5:63–65.
Gómez-Gómez SL, Salazar-Quiceno LF, Guisao DA, Betancur-Pérez JJ, Segura-Cardona AM. Effectiveness of two types of retainers on dental and occlusal stability. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq. 2016;28(1):34–53. [CrossRef]
Thilander B. Dentoalveolar development in individuals with normal occlusion: A longitudinal study from ages 5 to 31 years. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(2):109–120. [CrossRef]
Steinnes J, Johnsen G, Kerosuo H. Stability of orthodontic treatment outcomes in relation to retention status: An 8-year follow-up. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(6):1027–1033. [CrossRef]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
