Evaluation of the retention phase after orthodontic treatment from patient's perspective

Yıl 2024, , 9 - 16, 03.01.2024

Emre Kayalar , Dervişe Korun

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.1182126

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the post-treatment retention phase of the patients, whose orthodontic treatment has been completed, from the patient’s perspective.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 100 patients, between the ages of 8-18 and >18 years, who agreed to fill in 20 questionnaires using the Google forms program. According to the answers given by the patients, the patients' perspectives about relapse after orthodontic treatment were evaluated. The obtained data were analyzed with the SPSS 21 package program according to criteria including gender, age, education level, and treatment type. The relationship/dependency between the variables was examined by chi-square analysis.
Results:
Patients who received fixed retainers after treatment reported a significantly higher retention rate (96.3%). 83.3% of the patients whose retainer was broken reported moderate relapse in their teeth (p<0.001). A significant correlation was found between patients whose brackets were broken during orthodontic treatment and moderate relapse after treatment (70%). Women (85.7%) reported that they preferred clear aligners more than men (p<0.05) to orthodontic retreatment due to relapse.
Conclusions: Success in the post-orthodontic retention phase may be related to patient cooperation. In our study, it was seen that patients with relapse preferred clear aligner treatments instead of fixed orthodontic treatments in the orthodontic retreatments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Orthodontic treatment, Recurrence, Retention, Orthodontic Retainers

Ortodontik tedavi sonrası pekiştirme aşamasının hasta perspektifinden değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı sabit ortodontik tedavi görmüş hastaların tedavi sonrası pekiştirme aşamasının hasta perspektifinden değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu araştırma Google formlar programı kullanılarak 20 tane anket sorusunu doldurmayı kabul eden 8-18 ve >18 yaş arasındaki 100 hasta üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hastaların verdikleri cevaplar doğrultusunda hastaların ortodontik tedavi sonrasında nüks hakkında bakış açıları değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler cinsiyet, yaş, eğitim durumu, tedavi şekli gibi kriterlere göre SPSS 21 paket programı aracılığı ile analiz edilmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiye/bağımlılığa ki-kare analizi ile bakılmıştır.
Bulgular: Ortodontik tedavi sonrası dişlerinde bozulma olmadığını düşünen bireylerin %96’sında lingual retansiyon apareyi yapılmıştır. Retansiyon apareyi kırılan hastaların %83.3’ü dişlerinde orta şiddette bozulma olduğunu bildirmiştir (p<0.001). Ortodontik tedavi sırasında braketi kırılan hastalar ile tedavi sonrasında orta şiddette bozulma olması arasında anlamlı bir bağlantı bulunmuştur (%70). Dişlerindeki bozulmayı düzeltmek için şeffaf plak tedavisini kadınlar (%85.7), erkeklere oranla daha fazla tercih ettiğini bildirmiştir (p<0.05).
Sonuç: Ortodontik tedavi sonrası pekiştirme aşamasındaki başarı, hasta kooperasyonu ile bağlantılı olabilir. Çalışmamızda nüks olan hastaların ikinci ortodontik tedavilerde sabit tel tedavisi yerine şeffaf plak tedavilerini tercih ettiği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ortodontik tedavi, Nüks, Pekiştirme, Retansiyon apareyi

Kaynakça

• 1-Kharbanda OP. Orthodontics: Diagnosis and Management of Malocclusion and Dentofacial Deformities. 1st ed. Haryana: Elsevier India; 2009.
• 2- Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Lindstrom AF. Patient compliance with orthodontic retainers in the postretention phase. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;40:196–201.
• 3 Binda SK, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Maertens JK, van’t Hof MA. A long-term cephalometric evaluation of treated Class II Division 2 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:301-8.
• 4. van Leeuwen EJ, Maltha JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van’t Hof MA. The effect of retention on orthodontic relapse after the use of small continuous or discontinuous forces. An experimental study in beagle dogs. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111:111-6.
• 5. Nanda RS, Kierl MJ. Prediction of cooperation in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:15-21.
• 6. 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.
• 7-Mollov ND, Lindauer SJ, Best AM, Shroff B, Tufekci E. Patient attitudes toward retention and perceptions of treatment success. Angle Orthod 2010;80:656–61.
• 8-Lai C, Grossen JM, Renkema AM, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. Orthodontic Retention Procedures in Switzerland. Swiss Dent J 2014;124:655–61.
• 9. Valiathan M, Hughes E. Results of a Survey-based Study to Identify Common Retention Practices in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:170-7.
• 10-Iliadi A, Kloukos D, Gkantidis N, Katsaros C, Pandis N. Failure of fixed orthodontic retainers: A systematic review. J Dent 2015;43:876–96.
• 11-Störmann I, Ehmer U. A prospective randomized study of different retainer types. J Orofac Orthop 2002;63:42–50.
• 12-Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:619–30.
• 13-Bolla E, Cozzani M, Doldo T, Fontana M. Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: a comparison between glass fiber-reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int Orthod 2012;10:16–28.
• 14-Tacken MP, Cosyn J, De Wilde P, Aerts J, Govaerts E, Vannet BV. Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:117–23.
• 15-Valiathan M, Hughes E. Results of a survey-based study to identify common retention practices in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:170–7.
• 16- Flores-Mir C, Brandelli J, Pacheco-Pereira C. Patient satisfaction and quality of life status after 2 treatment modalities: Invisalign and conventional fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:639–44.
• 17- Carter LA, Geldenhuys M, Moynihan PJ, Slater DR, Exley CE, Rolland SL. The impact of orthodontic appliances on eating–young people’s views and experiences. J Orthod 2015;42:114–22.
• 18. Livas C, Delli K, Pandis N. My Invisalign experience: content, metrics and comment sentiment analysis of the most popular patient testimonials on YouTube. Prog Orthod 2018;1:1–8.
• 19- Sergl H, G, Klages U, Zentner A. Functional and social discomfort during orthodontic treatment effects on compliance and prediction of patients’ adaptation by personality variables. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:307–15.
• 20- Miller KB, McGorray SP, Womack R, et al. A comparison of treatment impacts between Invisalign aligner and fixed appliance therapy during the first week of treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:302.e1-9.
• 21- Faciama K, Mono T, Suzuki M, Maşuka S, Değici T. Analysis of patin level in cases treated with Invisalign aligner: comparison with fixed edgewise appliance therapy. Prog Orthod 2014;22:64.
• 22- Stewart FN, Kerr WJ, Taylor PJ. Appliance wear: the patient’s point of view. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:377–82.
• 23- Thilander B, Rygh P, Reitan K. Tissue reactions in orthodontics. In: Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL, editors. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2011. p. 253–86.
• 24- Abreu LG, Dos Santos TR, Melgaço CA, Abreu MHN, Lages EMB, Paiva SM. Impact of orthodontic treatment on adolescents’ quality of life: a longitudinal evaluation of treated and untreated individuals. Qual Life Res 2018;27:2019-26.