Sabit pekiştirme apareyi başarısızlığının prospektif klinik değerlendirmesi

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 3, 75 - 80, 14.08.2018

Zeliha Müge Baka Mehmet Akın

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.299307

Cited By: 1

Öz

Amaç:
Bu çalışmanın amacı, sabit pekiştirme
apareylerinin başarısızlık oranlarını prospektif olarak değerlendirmek ve
başarısızlıkların dağılımını 6 aylık süre boyunca belirlemektir.

Gereç
ve Yöntem: Sabit ortodontik tedavisi tamamlanmış, ortalama yaşları 14.89±1.08 yıl olan, 92 kız ve 58 erkek toplam 150 hastaya her iki çenede kanin-kanin arası sabit pekiştirme apareyleri uygulandı. Bu amaçla 0.0215 inçlik beş sarmallı tel (PentaOne, Masel Orthodontics) dişlere Transbond LR (3M Unitek) kullanılarak yapıştırıldı. Hastalar, sabitleyicinin yapıştırılmasından sonra 1., 3. ve 6.
aylarda klinikte kontrol edildi. Altı aylık gözlem periyodu boyunca sabitleyici başarısızlığı kaydedildi ve p<0.05 anlamlılık düzeyinde Cochran Q
testiyle istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi.

Bulgular:
Sabit pekiştirme apareyleri 14 hastada
başarısızlık gösterdi. Toplam başarısızlık oranı %9.3'tü. En yüksek
başarısızlık oranı ilk ayda görüldü (p<0.05). Kadın hastalarda başarısızlık
oranı erkek hastalara göre daha yüksekti (p<0.05). Üç hastada başarısızlık
tekrarlandı. Başarısızlık oranı mandibulada maksillaya göre daha yüksek olup (p<0.05), hem
maksilla hem de mandibulada sağ tarafta daha yüksekti. Toplam başarı oranı
%90.7 idi.

Sonuç:
Bu çalışmanın sonuçları,
sabit pekiştirme apareyindeki başarısızlık oranının, retansiyon döneminin ilk
ayında daha sık görüldüğünü ortaya koydu. Bu nedenle, bağlanma
başarısızlıklarını belirlemek için düzenli klinik kontroller gereklidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ortodontik sabitleyici, relaps, sağkalım oranı

A prospective clinical evaluation of fixed retainer failures

Öz

Objective: The aim of
this prospective study was to evaluate the failure rate of fixed lingual
retainers and to determine the distribution of these failures over a 6-month
period.

Materials and Method: One hundred
and fifty consecutively treated patients (92 females and 58 males, mean age of
14.89±1.08 years) who received canine-to-canine fixed lingual retainers after
active orthodontic treatment were followed up for 6 months. A 0.0215-inch
five-stranded wire (PentaOne, Masel Orthodontics) was bonded to the teeth using
Transbond LR (3M Unitek) adhesive. The patients were examined in the 1st, 3rd,
and 6th months after retention. The retainer failures during the 6-month
observation period were registered, and statistically analyzed using a
Cochran’s Q test at a significance level of p<0.05.

Results: Retainer
failures were seen in 14 patients, and the total failure rate was 9.3%. The
highest failure rate was seen in the first month (p<0.05). The female patients
exhibited a higher failure rate than the male patients (p<0.05), and three
patients had repeated failures. The failure rate was higher in the mandible
when compared with the maxilla (p<0.05), and in the right
quadrant for both the maxilla and the mandible. The total survival rate was
90.7%.

Conclusion: The result of this study revealed that higher number of failures
occurred in the first month of fixed retention. Therefore, regular clinical
controls are necessary to determine bonding failures.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Orthodontic retainers, Relapse, Survival rate

Kaynakça

• Joondeph DR, Riedel RA. Retention and relapse. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, editors. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. St. Louis: Mosby–Year Book; 1994. p. 908-50.
• Reitan K. Tissue rearrangement during retention of orthodontically rotated teeth. Angle Orthod 1959;29:105-13.
• Melrose C, Millett DT. Toward a perspective on orthodontic retention? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:507–14.
• Zachrisson BU. JCO/interviews Dr. Bjorn U. Zachrisson on excellence in finishing. Part 1. J Clin Orthod 1986;20:460-82.
• Renkema AM, Sips ETH, Bronkhorst E, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A survey on orthodontic retention procedures in The Netherlands. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:432-7.
• Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:207-13.
• Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod 1977;71:440-8.
• Zachrisson BU. The bonded lingual retainer and multiple spacing of anterior teeth. Swed Dent J Suppl 1982;15:247-55.
• Zachrisson BJ. Third-generation mandibular bonded lingual 3-3 retainer. J Clin Orthod 1995;29:39-48.
• Artun J. Caries and periodontal reactions associated with long-term use of different types of bonded lingual retainers. Am J Orthod 1984;86:112-8.
• Becker A. Periodontal splinting with multistrand wire following orthodontic realignment of migrated teeth: report of 38 cases. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1987;2:99–109.
• Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:619–30.
• Segner D, Heinrici B. Bonded retainers—clinical reliability J Orofac Orthop 2000;61:352-8.
• Booth FA, Edelman JM, Proffit WR. Twenty-year follow-up of patients with permanently bonded canine-to-canine retainers Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:70–6.
• Lie Sam Foek DJ, Ozcan M, Verkerke GJ, Sandham A, Dijkstra PU. Survival of flexible, braided, bonded, stainless steel lingual retainers: a historic cohort study. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:199–204.
• Taner T, Aksu M. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:470–4.
• Salehi P, Zarif Najafi H, Roeinpeikar SM. Comparison of survival time between two types of orthodontic fixed retainer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod 2013;11:14-25.
• 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.
• Lee KD, Mills CM. Bond failure rates for V-loop vs straight wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:502-6.
• Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial comparing placement time and failure over a 6-month period. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2014;146:701-8.
• Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:501-9.
• Tang AT, Forsberg CM, Andlin-Sobocki A, Ekstrand J, Hägg U. Lingual retainers bonded without liquid resin: a 5-year follow-up study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:101-4.
• Egli F, Bovali E,Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: Comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 2-year follow-up of a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:15-27.
• Störmann I, Ehmer U. A prospective randomized study of different retainer types. J Orofac Orthop 2002;63:42-50.
• Lumsden KW, Saidler G, McColl JH. Breakage incidence with direct-bonded lingual retainers. Br J Orthod 1999;26:191-4.