Abstract
Design
Randomised controlled trial.
Intervention
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a Hawley retainer (HR) or a clear overlay retainer (COR). The HR was composed of a 2 mm-thick acrylic resin base plate, one-arm clasps with 0.9 mm-diameter stainless steel wire on the first molars, and a Hawley bow with 0.7 mm stainless steel wire. The COR was made from a 0.75 mm-thick thermoplastic material with the buccal edge paralleling the gingival margin, the lingual portion extending 4 to 5 mm beyond the lingual gingival margin. Distally the second molars were covered. Both groups of patients were required to wear the retainers full-time, except during meals and were followed for one year.
Outcome measure
Retainer survival was the primary outcome. Small surface cracks were not considered as a breakage unless the retainers could not be worn because of crack expansion.
Results
One hundred and twenty patients were randomised, 61 in the HR group, 59 in the COR group, nine patients (five in the HR group and four in the COR group) were lost to follow up. Fracture was the most often cited reason for breakage, followed by retainer loss. No significant differences were seen in survival times between the two groups. Both retainers tended to fracture, but the fracture locations were different.
Conclusions
This analysis suggests that the survival times of the HRs and CORs were not statistically significantly different. Therefore, clinicians could advise their patients to wear either of the two retainers without taking breakage into consideration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
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. 2006 Jan 25; (1): CD 002283. Review.
Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A, et al. Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29: 372–378.
Sauget E, Covell DA, Boero RP, Lieber WS . Comparison of occlusal contacts with use of Hawley and clear overlay retainers. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 223–230.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: W.L. Lai Department of Orthodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, People's Republic of China. E-mail: wenlilai@hotmail.com
Sun J, Yu YC, Liu MY, et al. Survival time comparison between Hawley and clear overlay retainers: a randomized trial. J Dent Res 2011; 90: 1197–2201. Epub 2011 Jul 19. PubMed PMID: 21771797.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Keenan, A. No statistically significant results for two removable orthodontic retainers. Evid Based Dent 13, 119 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400900
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400900
