The effectiveness of
Hawley and vacuum
formed retainers: a single
center randomized
controlled trial
INDIAN DENTAL ACADEMY...
 Post fixed appliance therapy , retainers
routinely fitted by the orthodontists are worn by
the patient for 6 to 12 month...
 This is probably due to their improved
esthetics, ease of fabrication and lower costs.
 There is no evidence to support...
 Although studies have mentioned that there is
little to choose between Hawley and VFR,
except in open bite patients ,the...
 The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to
compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley
and VFR’s over a 6-month p...
Material and methods
 Clinical trial was conducted in an orthodontic
practice with a large sample treated by an
orthodont...
 Inclusion criteria:
 Patients who were due to have their fixed
orthodontic appliances removed.
 Treated under the NHS ...
 Exclusion criteria:
 Single-arch or sectional fixed appliance treatment.
 Hypodontia requiring tooth replacement on th...
 Potential participants were identified before
debonding, and the study’s purpose was
explained to the patients and their...
 Enrolment started in March 2003 and was
completed by December 2004.
 The orthodontist assessed 531 subjects for
eligibi...
 At the debond appointment after appliance
removal (T1), the orthodontist recorded over jet
and overbite.
 One set of ma...
 A blocked randomization method and retainers
were allocated per block of 20 patients.
 randomization was undertaken aft...
www.indiandentalacademy.com
www.indiandentalacademy.com
www.indiandentalacademy.com
 The Hawley retainer
 acrylic base plate
 Adams clasps of 0.7-
mm s.s wire on the
molars.
 A Hawley bow (open
looped s...
 Vacuum formed
retainers
 Erkodur blank (Erkodent,
Erich Kopp, GmbH,
Pfalzgrafenweiler,
Germany) 1.5 mm in
thickness was...
 The retainers were fitted within 1 week after debond.
 The duration of retainer wear was standardized
based on the stan...
 The subjects were reviewed by a member of the
research team at 2 intervals; 3 months and 6 months
after debond (T2).
 A...
 Orthodontic study models collected at T1 and T2.
were examined by 1blind researcher . Casts of poor
quality were exclude...
Methodology for the analysis of the study models
 The heels of the maxillary and mandibular models
were trimmed so that a...
 The JPEG image was enlarged to 200% by using
Paint Shop Pro 9 software (Corel UK Limited,
Maidenhead, Berkshire, United ...
www.indiandentalacademy.com
Tooth rotations mesial to the first permanent molars.
 The rotations of the incisors and
canines was determined by
constr...
 The LII was defined as the sum of the
displacements of the 5 contact points of the
incisors.
 The method described by L...
 ICW was the
distance between
canine cusp tips
 IMW was the
distance between the
mesiopalatal/
mesiolingual cusps
of the...
The measurement of rotation for the premolars
 was calculated by
constructing a line that
bisected the buccal and the
pal...
 The digitization of 1 model resulted in creation of a
“comma-separated-variable-string” file that enabled
the data to be...
 An intention-to-treat analysis was used wherever
data were available so that the data from all
patients who were success...
 Visual inspection of the histograms showed that the
data were considerably skewed and did not follow a
normal distributi...
 Relapse of overbite between T1 and T2 was
calculated by first determining the numbers of
subjects who stayed the same an...
 355 subjects (172 Hawley, 183 VFR) attended the 6-
month review, giving a completion rate of 89%. 155
models were analyz...
www.indiandentalacademy.com
 The intraobserver reliability coefficients ranged from
0.96 to 1.0 for linear measurements and from 0.93 to
1.0 for angu...
RESULTS
www.indiandentalacademy.com
DISCUSSION
 Conducting this study in a practice setting enabled
the research team to recruit and randomize 397
patients t...
 No statistically significant differences were found in
the effectiveness of the Hawley and the VFR to retain
tooth rotat...
 Although this difference is unlikely to be clinically
significant in the maxillary arch, it might be
considered clinical...
 Greater irregularity was seen in the mand.labial
segment compared to the max. labial segment
which follows the trend tha...
 Although the Hawley retainers were worn full time for
a longer period than the VFRs in this study, the latter
were still...
 If there is little difference in the clinical effectiveness
between the 2, questions could arise as to whether
any other...
CONCLUSIONS
 The results of this study suggest that VFR’s are more
effective than Hawley retainers at holding corrections...
Comparison of occlusal
contacts with use of
Hawley and clear overlay
retainers
Earl Sauget,
David A. Covell,
Roger P. Boer...
 After orthodontic repositioning of teeth,
retention devices are used to maintain arch
form and minimize the tendency of ...
 Commonly prescribed retainers include the
Hawley, wrap, fixed, clear overlay, and tooth
positioners.
 The designs of th...
 The design of the Hawley retainer has remained
unchanged.
 The original method of fabrication used lingual and
palatal ...
 Tibbetts compared Hawley retainers, clear overlay
retainers, and tooth positioners by analyzing dental
casts at debondin...
 Aim of this study was to use changes in occlusal
contacts for comparing the retention characteristics of
the Hawley and ...
Materials and methods
 Sample characteristics
 30 patients from the Orthodontic Clinic at the
University of the Pacific ...
 15 patients (9 females, 6 males) received maxillary
and mandibular clear overlay retainers.
 All patients had been in o...
 mean age - 18 yrs 8 mths (range: 13 yrs 11 mths to
35 yrs 10 mths).
 The clear overlay retainer sample included
 6 pat...
 Retainers
 Immediately following removal
of the fixed appliances, models
of the maxillary and
mandibular arches were
ma...
 The clear overlay retainers
were fabricated from 0.025
inch thermoplastic (Tru –
Tain; Rochester, Minn)
vacuum-heat adap...
 Patients receiving Hawley retainers were instructed
to wear them full-time, except during meals.
 Those prescribed clea...
 Bite registrations
 Vinyl polysiloxane impression material (Regisil PB;
Caulk– Dentsply, Milford, Del) was used to reco...
 The two bite registrations
were examined on a light box
and contacts appearing as
transparencies in the material,
were c...
 For analysis of the occlusal contacts, individual
registrations accumulated from multiple patients were
selected at rand...
 Observing from the maxillary side, the locations of
the contacts were assigned by tooth and then
grouped as either anter...
 Error of method
 The registrations were made within 30 minutes of
debanding (T1), at the time of retainer delivery (T2)...
Results
 Method error
 The standard measurement error (Sx) from repeated
thickness measurements of the same bite registr...
 Occlusal contacts at debanding (T1)
 a wide variation was seen between individuals of
both retainer groups with regard ...
 Occlusal contacts at retainer delivery T2
 At the time of retainer delivery, T2, there were no
significant differences ...
 Occlusal contacts after 3 months
retention (T3)
 At T3 The mean number of posterior true contacts
(Hawley: 16.4; clear ...
 In the Hawley group, between T1 and T3,
significant increases were found in the average
number of total contacts, the me...
www.indiandentalacademy.com
www.indiandentalacademy.com
 Comparison of changes between
groups
 No significant changes occurred between the two
retainer groups from T1 to T2 in ...
 There was a small reduction in the number of true
posterior contacts with the clear overlay retainers.
Most of the decre...
www.indiandentalacademy.com
www.indiandentalacademy.com
Discussion
 Results from this study show statistically significant
differences in the number of occlusal contacts
between...
 We believe these results are reliable due to minimal
number of confounders.
 The two samples matched favorably for size...
 The number of occlusal contacts at debonding in both
retainer samples was similar to that reported by
Radolsky and Sadow...
 The increase in contacts observed in the Hawley
retainer group agrees with the findings of Durbin and
Sadowsky, who comp...
 From appliance removal to retainer delivery, any
alteration in occlusal contacts in both samples should
be similar.
 Bo...
 With up to 0.05 inches of retainer material between
the teeth, initial contact at closure was between the
more posterior...
 Alternately, if the mandibular condyles had been
distracted to produce a more uniform distribution of
occlusal contact w...
 It is most likely that the overlay retainers reverse the
settling occurring between T1 and T2 because the
retainers are ...
 Assuming some tooth settling had occurred during
the day in the clear overlay retainer patients, it is
likely that had t...
 In the present study, greater increases would be
anticipated in the clear overlay patient group if
retainer use were to ...
Conclusion
 This study demonstrates that significantly more
occlusal contacts appear during the first 3 months of
retenti...
Comparison of Essix and
Hawley Retainers
STEVEN J. LINDAUER,
ROBERT C. SHOFF,
JCO 2003 ,VOL 35 ,1998
www.indiandentalacade...
 Essix retainers were introduced in 1993, as an
esthetic, comfortable, and inexpensive alternative
to traditional fixed a...
Materials & Methods
 Patients completing full orthodontic treatment at the
Medical College of Virginia clinic were altern...
 The Essix retainers were thermoformed from .030"
sheets according to the manufacturer's instructions.
 The patients wer...
 Patients wore the retainers full -time for the first 3
mths and only at night for the next 3 mths.
 Occlusal measuremen...
Results
 16 of the 56 patients were eventually eliminated from
the study.
 7 patients--5 in the Essix group and 2 in the...
 The Hawley patients showed slightly more incisor
irregularity in both arches than the Essix group did
but the difference...
www.indiandentalacademy.com
www.indiandentalacademy.com
www.indiandentalacademy.com
Discussion
 Various clinicians have reported individual cases of
anterior open bite in patients wearing Essix retainers,
...
 In this study, the number of Essix patients who lost
their retainers was not significantly greater than
Hawley patients....
Conclusion
 When Essix retainers are used as recommended,
they do not appear to be any less effective than
Hawley retaine...
www.indiandentalacademy.com
For more details please visit
www.indiandentalacademy.com
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

retiner hawleys

220

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
220
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Six months was a familiar landmark time period for most orthodontists, and it was likely that most patients will still be complying with their retainer wear and so it was chosen.
  • It was calculated that a total sample size of 388 subjects would give a power of 80% with a 5% significance level to detect a true difference in contactpoint displacement of greater than 0.2 mm.
    at least 400 patients (200 in each group) would be recruited to allow for dropouts and loss to follow-up
  • was chosen, based on equal numbers of both types of
    and were blind to the fact that they were making retainers for patients included in the trial.
  • It was found that the VFRs were significantly better at retaining the labial segments than the Hawley retainers.
  • Transcript of " retiner hawleys"

    1. 1. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum formed retainers: a single center randomized controlled trial INDIAN DENTAL ACADEMY Leader in continuing dental education www.indiandentalacademy.com www.indiandentalacademy.com
    2. 2.  Post fixed appliance therapy , retainers routinely fitted by the orthodontists are worn by the patient for 6 to 12 months while the soft and hard tissues remodel around the teeth.  In the long term retention might be necessary until growth is complete or indefinitely, if teeth are in unstable positions.  Hawley retainers and vacuum formed retainers are the 2 most commonly prescribed retainers in the UK NHS. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    3. 3.  This is probably due to their improved esthetics, ease of fabrication and lower costs.  There is no evidence to support the use of VFR’s over Hawley’s retainers .  But evidence suggests that the Hawley's might be the retainer of choice when a lateral open bite is present before debond. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    4. 4.  Although studies have mentioned that there is little to choose between Hawley and VFR, except in open bite patients ,the evidence is weak because of the small sample sizes.  However ,the potential cost savings in a health care system with the routine use of VFR’s rather than Hawley's are significant which alone justifies more research and greater statistical power to enable valid clinical and economic considerations to be reached. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    5. 5.  The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley and VFR’s over a 6-month period after debonding , in terms of Little’s index of irregularity (LII), tooth rotation, intercanine width (ICW), intermolar width (IMW), over jet, and overbite . Aim www.indiandentalacademy.com
    6. 6. Material and methods  Clinical trial was conducted in an orthodontic practice with a large sample treated by an orthodontist approved by local research and ethics committee at united Bristol health care trust . www.indiandentalacademy.com
    7. 7.  Inclusion criteria:  Patients who were due to have their fixed orthodontic appliances removed.  Treated under the NHS by the same orthodontist.  fixed appliance treatment involving both arches.  preadjusted edgewise appliances.  pretreatment records.  treatment plan.  study models available.  willingness to wear maxillary and mandibular retainers. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    8. 8.  Exclusion criteria:  Single-arch or sectional fixed appliance treatment.  Hypodontia requiring tooth replacement on the retainer as a temporary measure.  Rapid maxillary expansion.  Bonded retainers.  Poor periodontal status.  Early debonding.  Transfer patients.  Learning difficulties.  Cleft lip or palate. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    9. 9.  Potential participants were identified before debonding, and the study’s purpose was explained to the patients and their parents or legal guardians.  Written information about the study was given to all potential participants, and written consent was obtained before the debond appointment.  For patients under 16 years, written consent was also obtained from the parent or legal guardian.  Gillick competence was applied when necessary www.indiandentalacademy.com
    10. 10.  Enrolment started in March 2003 and was completed by December 2004.  The orthodontist assessed 531 subjects for eligibility.  55 did not meet the inclusion criteria.  79 refused to participate,  recruitment rate was 75%.  Three hundred ninety-seven subjects agreed to take part in the study. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    11. 11.  At the debond appointment after appliance removal (T1), the orthodontist recorded over jet and overbite.  One set of maxillary and mandibular alginate impressions were made, and study models and working models were cast on which the retainers were to be made.  All subjects were randomized by the research team to receive either maxillary and mandibular Hawley retainers or VFR’s. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    12. 12.  A blocked randomization method and retainers were allocated per block of 20 patients.  randomization was undertaken after obtaining patient consent to ensure concealment of allocation  196 patients were randomized to Hawley retainers and 201 to VFRs.  Two fully qualified, blinded lab. technicians fabricated the retainers to standardized designs. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    13. 13. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    14. 14. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    15. 15. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    16. 16.  The Hawley retainer  acrylic base plate  Adams clasps of 0.7- mm s.s wire on the molars.  A Hawley bow (open looped short labial bow) from 0.7-mm s.s wire extending from canine to canine.  The Hawley bow was then contoured with acrylic resin to contact the labial surfaces of the incisors www.indiandentalacademy.com
    17. 17.  Vacuum formed retainers  Erkodur blank (Erkodent, Erich Kopp, GmbH, Pfalzgrafenweiler, Germany) 1.5 mm in thickness was used.  The retainer was trimmed to provide 1 to 2 mm buccal and 3 to 4 mm lingual extensions past the gingival margin.  All occlusal surfaces were covered up to and including the most distal tooth www.indiandentalacademy.com
    18. 18.  The retainers were fitted within 1 week after debond.  The duration of retainer wear was standardized based on the standard protocol for retainer wear.  Hawley retainers were to be worn 24 hours a day for 3 mths, including while eating, but to remove them when brushing their teeth. After 3 mths, wear time was reduced to 12 hours a day.  the VFRs were to be worn 24 hours a day for the 1st week except while eating and brushing teeth. After the 1st week, wear time was reduced to 12 hours a day. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    19. 19.  The subjects were reviewed by a member of the research team at 2 intervals; 3 months and 6 months after debond (T2).  At the 6-month review appointment, over jet and overbite were recorded, and alginate impressions for end-of-trial study models were taken.  The subjects were asked to remove their retainers before their appointments so that the research team would be blind to the type of retainers that they were wearing. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    20. 20.  Orthodontic study models collected at T1 and T2. were examined by 1blind researcher . Casts of poor quality were excluded from the analysis .  The number of models excluded and the reasons for exclusion were documented.  The method used to measure changes in the study models between debond and 6 months was based on the study of Tran et al, in which the LII was measured on 2-dimensional scanned and printed images of study models. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    21. 21. Methodology for the analysis of the study models  The heels of the maxillary and mandibular models were trimmed so that all occlusal surfaces of the teeth contacted the glass bed of the scanner.  The mesiopalatal/mesiolingual cusp of the molars, the buccal and mesiopalatal/mesiolingual cusps of the premolars, and the canine cusp tips were marked with a pencil.  The models were then placed on the glass of the flatbed scanner (Agfa SnapScan 1236 flatbed scanner; Agfa-Gevaert N.V., Mortsel, Belgium), with their occlusal surfaces facing down and in contact with the glass. Each was scanned at a resolution of 600 dpi, and the resulting image was saved to a PC as a JPEG file.www.indiandentalacademy.com
    22. 22.  The JPEG image was enlarged to 200% by using Paint Shop Pro 9 software (Corel UK Limited, Maidenhead, Berkshire, United Kingdom) to make point identification easier during subsequent digitizing.  The image was then printed in color with a laser printer . A total of 34 points were digitized in sequence from point 1 to point 34 by using a GTC digitizer (GTCO Cal Comp, Columbia, Md) on each printed image of a study model  A computer program, written specifically for the study, automatically calculated the following outcomes in both arches for each digitized image. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    23. 23. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    24. 24. Tooth rotations mesial to the first permanent molars.  The rotations of the incisors and canines was determined by constructing a line that bisected 2 points per tooth that best marked its rotational angulation .  The angle formed by the intersection of this line with the line forming arch depth gave the measurement of rotation of the tooth.  Arch depth was defined as the length of a line perpendicular to the intermolar width that passed through the midpoint of the contact points of the central incisors. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    25. 25.  The LII was defined as the sum of the displacements of the 5 contact points of the incisors.  The method described by Little used the true anatomic contact point to assess tooth displacements.  However, with a printed 2-dimensional image, it was almost impossible to determine the true anatomic contact point.  The LII was therefore redefined for this study as the displacement between the midpoint of the incisor edges. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    26. 26.  ICW was the distance between canine cusp tips  IMW was the distance between the mesiopalatal/ mesiolingual cusps of the first molars www.indiandentalacademy.com
    27. 27. The measurement of rotation for the premolars  was calculated by constructing a line that bisected the buccal and the palatal/lingual cusp tips .  In premolars with 2 lingual/palatal cusps, the mesiopalatal / mesiolingual cusp was bisected to form the line.  The angle formed by the intersection of this line with the line forming arch depth gave the rotation of the tooth. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    28. 28.  The digitization of 1 model resulted in creation of a “comma-separated-variable-string” file that enabled the data to be exported electronically into a database (version 13.0; SPSS, Chicago, Ill) for statistical analysis.  To record the reproducibility of the method, 1 examiner (H.R.) made all measurements on 30 models on 2 occasions ,a week apart. Intra observer reliability coefficients were then calculated. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    29. 29.  An intention-to-treat analysis was used wherever data were available so that the data from all patients who were successfully randomized and for whom baseline and final records were available were included in the analysis.  Relapse amounts for LII, ICW, IMW, tooth rotation, and over jet were determined by comparing the difference between the measurements at T1 and T2. Absolute values for these outcome measures were calculated because any change in either a positive or a negative direction could be considered relapse. The absolute difference was calculated so that positive and negative changes did not cancel each other. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    30. 30.  Visual inspection of the histograms showed that the data were considerably skewed and did not follow a normal distribution.  The median and the interquartile range were therefore calculated for each outcome at T1 and T2. Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the Hawley and the VFR groups in terms of the changes between T1 and T2. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    31. 31.  Relapse of overbite between T1 and T2 was calculated by first determining the numbers of subjects who stayed the same and whose overbite changed in each group. The differences between the overbite change for both groups were assessed by using the Fisher exact test.  Because of the number of tests performed, a P value of .01 was taken to be statistically significant. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    32. 32.  355 subjects (172 Hawley, 183 VFR) attended the 6- month review, giving a completion rate of 89%. 155 models were analyzed in the Hawley group and 155 in the VFR group.  Both groups had a median change in over jet between T1 and T2 of 0.5 mm . In 54 subjects (32%) in the Hawley group and 49 subjects (27%) in the VFR group, a change in overbite was observed at T2 . Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in overbite between the 2 retainers. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    33. 33. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    34. 34.  The intraobserver reliability coefficients ranged from 0.96 to 1.0 for linear measurements and from 0.93 to 1.0 for angular measurements, demonstrating that the method had good reliability. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    35. 35. RESULTS www.indiandentalacademy.com
    36. 36. DISCUSSION  Conducting this study in a practice setting enabled the research team to recruit and randomize 397 patients treated by 1 operator over a relatively short time period (18 months). To date, this is the largest such clinical trial on the effectiveness of the Hawley and the VFR.  In this study, the retainer groups matched favorably for baseline characteristics, and it is therefore likely that the 2 groups were equally matched and that the randomization process worked well. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    37. 37.  No statistically significant differences were found in the effectiveness of the Hawley and the VFR to retain tooth rotations, ICW, and IMW in both arches.  Anecdotal concerns that VFRs lack rigidity and might not support transarch stability were not upheld in this study.  However, a statistically significant difference was found between the retainers in the maintenance of incisor irregularity, because the Hawley group had double the change in irregularity over 6 months compared with the VFR group. These differences were 0.56 mm in the mandibular arch and 0.25 mm in the maxillary arch. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    38. 38.  Although this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant in the maxillary arch, it might be considered clinically significant in the mandibular arch, particularly if the relapse was located to a single tooth displacement.  The results contrast with those of the previous studies comparing the Hawley and the VFR. The differences in results from the previous trials might in part be explained by the much larger sample and its considerably greater statistical power. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    39. 39.  Greater irregularity was seen in the mand.labial segment compared to the max. labial segment which follows the trend that irregularity is most marked in the mandibular labial segment.  This study can perhaps be criticized for using 2 retainer wear regimens. However, the protocols were chosen to match the wear regimens already in place at the practice.  An advantage of conducting a trial in this manner was that the findings should be more representative of what occurs in everyday clinical practice, measuring effectiveness rather than efficacy. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    40. 40.  Although the Hawley retainers were worn full time for a longer period than the VFRs in this study, the latter were still more effective in maintaining incisor alignment, particularly in the mandibular arch.  It could perhaps be argued that if relapse of incisor position is truly to be minimized, then consideration should be given to the use of a bonded retainer.  However, a recent Cochrane review examining a number of aspects of retention, including removable vs fixed retention, found the quality of the studies to be poor, and there is as yet no reliable evidence that fixed retainers are more effective than VFRs. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    41. 41.  If there is little difference in the clinical effectiveness between the 2, questions could arise as to whether any other factors might influence the choice of retainer, including cost, ease of fabrication, risk of breakage, patient compliance, and patient preference or satisfaction.  The answers to these questions will be addressed in a parallel study. Each patient should, however, be assessed individually because Hawley retainers still offer the additional benefit of allowing superior vertical settling compared with VFRs. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    42. 42. CONCLUSIONS  The results of this study suggest that VFR’s are more effective than Hawley retainers at holding corrections in irregularity in the mand. labial segment compared with the max.labial segment.  With regard to long-term occlusal changes, this follows the trend that irregularity is most marked in the maxillary and mandibular labial segments.  This is likely to be clinically significant only in the mandibular arch if located to a single tooth displacement. In addition, this trial supports the need for further research in primary care. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    43. 43. Comparison of occlusal contacts with use of Hawley and clear overlay retainers Earl Sauget, David A. Covell, Roger P. Boero, William S. Lieber. Angle Orthodontist, 1997, No. 3, 223 - 230 www.indiandentalacademy.com
    44. 44.  After orthodontic repositioning of teeth, retention devices are used to maintain arch form and minimize the tendency of teeth to shift.  undesirable changes - “relapse,”  desirable changes - “settling.”  With settling, the number of occlusal contacts increases, improving the fit of the teeth. The best retention device would be one that allows settling but prevents relapse. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    45. 45.  Commonly prescribed retainers include the Hawley, wrap, fixed, clear overlay, and tooth positioners.  The designs of these retainers differ, particularly the extent of the retainer-tooth contacts.  Due to these contrasts in retainer design, characteristic differences in tooth position following their use would be anticipated www.indiandentalacademy.com
    46. 46.  The design of the Hawley retainer has remained unchanged.  The original method of fabrication used lingual and palatal plates made of vulcanized rubber that were accurately adapted to the lingual surfaces of the teeth, and a labial wire with adjustment loops at the canines. Today, acrylic has replaced the rubber.  The clear overlay retainer, by Ponitz in 1971, is made of thin (0.025 inch), vacuum-formed thermoplastic material that adapts closely to the lingual, facial, and occlusal surfaces of the teeth. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    47. 47.  Tibbetts compared Hawley retainers, clear overlay retainers, and tooth positioners by analyzing dental casts at debonding and after a 6-month retention period.  The results showed no statistically significant differences in Angle’s molar classification, overbite, over jet, maxillary or mandibular intercanine width, intermolar width, or arch length. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    48. 48.  Aim of this study was to use changes in occlusal contacts for comparing the retention characteristics of the Hawley and clear overlay retainers.  Occlusal contacts between the maxillary and mandibular teeth were statistically compared at debanding, when retainers were delivered, and after 3 months of retention. Aim www.indiandentalacademy.com
    49. 49. Materials and methods  Sample characteristics  30 patients from the Orthodontic Clinic at the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry were prescribed alternately, Hawley retainers or clear overlay retainers .  13 patients ( 8 females, 5 males) received maxillary and mandibular Hawley retainers.  2 patients (both female) received maxillary Hawley retainers with mandibular fixed lingual retainers. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    50. 50.  15 patients (9 females, 6 males) received maxillary and mandibular clear overlay retainers.  All patients had been in orthodontic treatment for at least 18 months.  The Hawley retainer sample contained  5 patients - premolar extractions,  8 patients – non extraction,  2 patients - congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    51. 51.  mean age - 18 yrs 8 mths (range: 13 yrs 11 mths to 35 yrs 10 mths).  The clear overlay retainer sample included  6 patients - premolar extractions,  8 - non extraction,  1 - missing maxillary lateral incisors.  The mean age was 19 years 6 months (range: 13 years 9 months to 42 years 2 months). www.indiandentalacademy.com
    52. 52.  Retainers  Immediately following removal of the fixed appliances, models of the maxillary and mandibular arches were made .  the retainers were delivered 1week later and the Hawley appliances were adjusted so the labial bow made uniform, passive contact with each anterior tooth.  The mandibular incisors were in light contact with the acrylic, lingual to the maxillary incisors, when the posterior teeth were in maximum intercuspation. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    53. 53.  The clear overlay retainers were fabricated from 0.025 inch thermoplastic (Tru – Tain; Rochester, Minn) vacuum-heat adapted to dry models.  The facial surfaces of the retainers were trimmed to cover the incisal 1/3rd of the incisors and to extend 3 mm beyond the gingival margin posteriorly.  Occlusal coverage extended distally to cover approx the mesial half of the maxillary and mandibular second molars. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    54. 54.  Patients receiving Hawley retainers were instructed to wear them full-time, except during meals.  Those prescribed clear overlay retainers were instructed to wear their retainers full-time for the first three days (except during meals), and nightly thereafter. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    55. 55.  Bite registrations  Vinyl polysiloxane impression material (Regisil PB; Caulk– Dentsply, Milford, Del) was used to record the occlusal contacts.  Patients were seated upright in a dental chair and the registration material was applied over the occlusal surfaces of the mandibular teeth. The patient was told to bite firmly in maximum intercuspation .  A second bite registration was made within 15 minutes to test the reproducibility. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    56. 56.  The two bite registrations were examined on a light box and contacts appearing as transparencies in the material, were compared.  If a subjective difference in the pattern of contacts was observed, another registration was made. In no case was a fourth registration needed.  To objectively analyze the bite registrations, each was labelled with a randomized identification code and the registrations intermixed. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    57. 57.  For analysis of the occlusal contacts, individual registrations accumulated from multiple patients were selected at random.  Occlusal contacts were evaluated and classified as either true or near contacts.  True contacts perforated the impression material; near contacts appeared as thin translucencies and were counted only if they were 0.20 mm or less as measured with an Iwanson caliper. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    58. 58.  Observing from the maxillary side, the locations of the contacts were assigned by tooth and then grouped as either anterior (incisors and canines) or posterior (premolars, first molars, and second molars).  All registrations were evaluated and measured by the same individual. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    59. 59.  Error of method  The registrations were made within 30 minutes of debanding (T1), at the time of retainer delivery (T2), and three months later (T3).  All registrations were made in the afternoon by the same clinician. To test the measurement accuracy, 10 bite registrations were selected at random and the near contacts measured. The same registrations were remeasured on a different day.  The standard measurement error (Sx) was calculated using Dahlberg’s formula, Sx = sq.root of D2 /2N where D is the difference between duplicated measurements and n is the number of double measurements . www.indiandentalacademy.com
    60. 60. Results  Method error  The standard measurement error (Sx) from repeated thickness measurements of the same bite registration was 0.014 mm.  Comparison of measurements between paired records made on the same day showed an error of 0.018 mm.  Thus the variation found in repeated registrations approximated the limits of the measurement technique. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    61. 61.  Occlusal contacts at debanding (T1)  a wide variation was seen between individuals of both retainer groups with regard to the number of total occlusal contacts.  The Hawley retainers had a mean of 34.3 occlusal contacts (± 10.45 standard deviation) and the clear overlay retainers had a mean of 31.8 .  Comparing the Hawley and clear overlay retainer groups at debanding, there were no statistically significant differences between the mean number of total contacts, true contacts, near contacts, or anterior/posterior contacts www.indiandentalacademy.com
    62. 62.  Occlusal contacts at retainer delivery T2  At the time of retainer delivery, T2, there were no significant differences between the two retainer groups in the average number of each classification of occlusal contacts  Within each retainer group there were no significant changes between T1 and T2 except for an increase in posterior true contacts in the Hawley group (T1: 10.9 ± 4.0; T2: 14.1 ± 4.0, P<0.05). www.indiandentalacademy.com
    63. 63.  Occlusal contacts after 3 months retention (T3)  At T3 The mean number of posterior true contacts (Hawley: 16.4; clear overlay: 11.9) and the mean number of total true contacts (Hawley: 20.2; clear overlay: 15.1) were significantly different between the retainer groups  Neither sample showed a significant within–group change between T2 and T3. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    64. 64.  In the Hawley group, between T1 and T3, significant increases were found in the average number of total contacts, the mean number of total true contacts, near contacts, posterior contacts, and posterior true contacts  The average number of posterior near contacts approached statistical significance (P=0.06). There were no differences in anterior contacts.  The clear overlay group displayed no significant differences in any category between T1 and T3 www.indiandentalacademy.com
    65. 65. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    66. 66. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    67. 67.  Comparison of changes between groups  No significant changes occurred between the two retainer groups from T1 to T2 in any of the occlusal contact categories  From T2 to T3 the number of total contacts and posterior contacts increased significantly more in the Hawley group than the clear overlay group www.indiandentalacademy.com
    68. 68.  There was a small reduction in the number of true posterior contacts with the clear overlay retainers. Most of the decrease occurred at the first molars and to a lesser extent at the first premolars. The mean changes in anterior contacts were not significant  From T1 to T3, the occlusal contact changes in the Hawley group compared with the clear overlay group showed a similar pattern to that found from T2 to T3 www.indiandentalacademy.com
    69. 69. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    70. 70. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    71. 71. Discussion  Results from this study show statistically significant differences in the number of occlusal contacts between Hawley and clear overlay retainers.  After 3 months of retention with the Hawley retainers, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of total contacts.  In contrast, over the same time period with the clear overlay retainers, there was no change in the number of occlusal contacts. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    72. 72.  We believe these results are reliable due to minimal number of confounders.  The two samples matched favorably for size, age, gender, and numbers of cases with teeth extracted or missing.  With regard to the methods, the bite technique for recording occlusal contacts was highly reproducible. In addition, the method has been validated in several previous investigations.  Finally, because diurnal variation in occlusal contacts has been reported, the bite registrations were made only during the afternoon. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    73. 73.  The number of occlusal contacts at debonding in both retainer samples was similar to that reported by Radolsky and Sadowsky.  The mean number of total contacts in their study was 36.6 (17.1 near contacts, 19.1 actual contacts), while this study recorded 34.3 ± 10.5 total contacts (18.7 ± 7.0 near contacts, 15.6 ± 5.8 true contacts) for the Hawley retainer group and 31.8 ± 11.8 total contacts (14.0 ± 6.5 near, 17.8 ± 7.5 true) in the clear overlay retainer group. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    74. 74.  The increase in contacts observed in the Hawley retainer group agrees with the findings of Durbin and Sadowsky, who compared Hawley retainers with tooth positioners.  With the Hawley retainer they found the total number of contacts increased significantly during the first 3 months of retention, with most of the increase associated with posterior contacts.  From these results it is apparent that with a Hawley retainer, the posterior teeth settle after the bands are removed.  Razdolsky and Sadowsky described minimal migration of the contacts toward the central groove. No attempt was made in this study to characterize the location, or alteration of location, of contacts on individual teeth. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    75. 75.  From appliance removal to retainer delivery, any alteration in occlusal contacts in both samples should be similar.  Both showed a small increase in the number of posterior contacts from T1 to T2, with a greater increase in the Hawley retainer group  Several possibilities can be proposed to account for the differences between retainer groups from T1 to T3.  First, no attempt was made to adjust the overlay retainers to optimal occlusal contact. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    76. 76.  With up to 0.05 inches of retainer material between the teeth, initial contact at closure was between the more posterior teeth.  This contact may have loaded the molars more than the anterior teeth and have prevented further eruption or settling, or possibly intruded the molars.  However, the differential occlusal loading when the retainers were worn at night would have been counteracted during the day when the retainers were not worn www.indiandentalacademy.com
    77. 77.  Alternately, if the mandibular condyles had been distracted to produce a more uniform distribution of occlusal contact with the retainers in place, there should have been an increase in posterior contacts when the overlay retainers were removed and the condyle assumed its normal position.  The data shows the opposite occurred. Because the second molars were only partially covered by the overlay retainers, they may have erupted more relative to the more mesial teeth. The second molars would then become an occlusal stop when the retainers were removed. However, this explanation is unlikely because the second molars did not show an increase in occlusal contacts. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    78. 78.  It is most likely that the overlay retainers reverse the settling occurring between T1 and T2 because the retainers are fabricated on casts taken at T1.  This hypothesis is consistent with data from the clear overlay group showing a slight reduction in posterior contacts from T2 to T3, but no difference in the number of contacts at T3 compared to T1.  The Hawley retainer, on the other hand, may encourage posterior tooth eruption. Since the Hawley retainers were worn full time, the anterior bite plane and labial wire may have held the anterior teeth, allowing the posterior teeth to extrude.  This suggestion is supported by data showing no change in the anterior contacts in the Hawley group, while the posterior contacts increased. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    79. 79.  Assuming some tooth settling had occurred during the day in the clear overlay retainer patients, it is likely that had the bite registrations been made in the morning, differences between the two retainer groups would have been even greater.  Based on previous studies, additional increases in occlusal contacts during retention should be expected over time, particularly as daily retainer wear is reduced. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    80. 80.  In the present study, greater increases would be anticipated in the clear overlay patient group if retainer use were to be discontinued.  Areas for future investigation include comparisons of changes in occlusal contacts with other types of removable as well as fixed retainers, and long-term follow-up on changes occurring over an extended retention period. Ultimately, it would be of interest to establish whether the differences in occlusal contact patterns after 3 months retention will result in differing tendencies toward settling or relapse at extended retention and post retention intervals. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    81. 81. Conclusion  This study demonstrates that significantly more occlusal contacts appear during the first 3 months of retention with use of the Hawley retainer, whereas little change is found with the clear overlay retainer.  These findings suggest that Hawley retainers should be prescribed if one of the objectives of retention is to allow for relative vertical tooth eruption (tooth settling), particularly of posterior teeth.  Conversely, if the desired occlusion is established before retainer fabrication, for example with a positioner, the clear overlay retainers should function well to maintain the occlusal contact pattern. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    82. 82. Comparison of Essix and Hawley Retainers STEVEN J. LINDAUER, ROBERT C. SHOFF, JCO 2003 ,VOL 35 ,1998 www.indiandentalacademy.com
    83. 83.  Essix retainers were introduced in 1993, as an esthetic, comfortable, and inexpensive alternative to traditional fixed and removable orthodontic retainers.  They are thermoformed from plastic, copolyester Essix sheet material and trimmed to fit over the anterior teeth from canine to canine. Patients are instructed to wear them only at night after a short period of nearly full-time wear. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    84. 84. Materials & Methods  Patients completing full orthodontic treatment at the Medical College of Virginia clinic were alternately assigned to Essix and Hawley retention groups.  Those who had posterior cross bites or anterior open bites before treatment were excluded from the study.  Twenty-eight patients were assigned to each group for observation during the first six months of active retention. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    85. 85.  The Essix retainers were thermoformed from .030" sheets according to the manufacturer's instructions.  The patients were instructed to wear their mandibular retainers full-time and their maxillary retainers half- time for the first four weeks, and both retainers only at night thereafter.  Patients were given two retainers per arch, with one serving as a replacement in case the other was lost or broken. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    86. 86.  Patients wore the retainers full -time for the first 3 mths and only at night for the next 3 mths.  Occlusal measurements were taken from study casts made before treatment, after treatment, and after six months of retention.  Anterior crowding was evaluated with Little's Irregularity Index, and overbite and over jet were measured as usual.  The differences between groups were tested with multivariate analysis of variance. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    87. 87. Results  16 of the 56 patients were eventually eliminated from the study.  7 patients--5 in the Essix group and 2 in the Hawley group--lost their retainers and did not wear them for more than a week.  The difference in loss rates was not statistically significant. Four patients from each group moved out of the area or did not show up for their 6 month retention appointments.  One Hawley patient requested that a fixed retainer be placed instead of the removable appliance.  This left 19 patients in the Essix group and 21 in the Hawley group. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    88. 88.  The Hawley patients showed slightly more incisor irregularity in both arches than the Essix group did but the difference was significant only for the maxillary arch .  There were no significant differences between groups in the change in irregularity recorded for either arch over the six-month retention period.  Likewise, there were no significant differences between groups in the amount of change in overbite or over jet .  Two Essix patients and three Hawley patients showed small decreases in over bite of about .5mm each. No patient in either group developed anterior open bite. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    89. 89. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    90. 90. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    91. 91. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    92. 92. Discussion  Various clinicians have reported individual cases of anterior open bite in patients wearing Essix retainers, probably because of the posterior disclusion caused by the anterior contact of the Essix material .  In the present study, with patients wearing the appliances only at night after the first four weeks, there were no such cases.  The number of patients with minor decreases in overbite during retention was similar to that of the Hawley group.  It has also been claimed that Essix retainers are more easily lost than traditional appliances because they are transparent. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    93. 93.  In this study, the number of Essix patients who lost their retainers was not significantly greater than Hawley patients.  One method to reduce the loss of Essix retainer is to add a color stripe along the lingual edge of the appliance making it more visible when out of the mouth.  Another disadv is that Essix retainers may wear out and will have to be replaced annually. No remake was done during this study but several became perforated or cracked after 6 to 12 mths. manufacturer claims the durability of the material has been recently improved. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    94. 94. Conclusion  When Essix retainers are used as recommended, they do not appear to be any less effective than Hawley retainers in maintaining orthodontic corrections.  The Essix patients in this study did not show any increased tendency to develop anterior open bites.  Essix retainers were somewhat more likely than Hawley retainers to be lost, but this finding was not statistically significant.  If patients and clinicians keep in mind that replacements may be needed as Essix retainers age, these appliances can serve effectively as alternatives to traditional Hawley retainers. www.indiandentalacademy.com
    95. 95. www.indiandentalacademy.com For more details please visit www.indiandentalacademy.com

    ×