Periodontal implications of bonded vs. removable retainers


Published on

1997 AJO

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Periodontal implications of bonded vs. removable retainers

  1. 1. Periodontal implications of bonded versus removable retainers Evi E. Heier, DDS, a Aimd A. De Smit, DDS, PhD, a Ingrid A. Wijgaerts, D D S , b and Patrick A. Adriaens, DDS, DMD, MScD, PhD b Brussels, Belgium Removable retainers have been used by clinicians since the early years of orthodontic practice. During the last decades, an increasing number of cases are retained with bonded lingual retainers. The current study was performed to evaluate whether significant differences in gingival conditions exist between patients who wear removable or fixed retainers. Differences in build-up of plaque and calculus were also investigated. Maxillary and mandibular measurements were taken at baseline (just before debonding) and 1, 3, and 6 months later, from canine to canine on 36 patients. Among these patients, 22 had fixed retainers, and 14 wore removable retainers. The gingival condition was scored according to three parameters: Modified Gingival Index, bleeding on probing, and gingival crevicular fluid flow. After staining with Diaplac, the Plaque Index was registered. The amount of calculus was measured with a calibrated periodontal probe. Gingival inflammation decreased from baseline throughout the entire period of retention. A comparable limited gingival inflammation was found in the presence of both types of retainers. Slightly more plaque and calculus were present on the lingual surfaces in the fixed retainer group. This did not result in more pronounced gingival inflammation than in the removable retainer group, within the evaluated period. (Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;112:607-16.) W h en removable retainers are used, cli- bonded lingual retainers, stressed the importance of nicians have to rely on patients' discipline and daily interproximal cleaning with dental floss. De- long-term compliance. Oral hygiene, however, will spite optimal oral hygiene instructions, calculus not be complicated by this kind of appliance. The formed to a greater extent on the lingual surfaces of introduction of bonding techniques enabled the the incisors with bonded retainers, compared with construction of permanent interdental wire connec- incisors without retainers. These findings were con- tions as retention device. 16 As these retainers are firmed on a long-term basis by Dahl and Zacchris- placed "invisibly" on the lingual tooth surfaces, son. 11 They found more plaque and calculus around patients' acceptance is evident and compliance with mandibular retainers, compared with the maxilla. the orthodontic retention therapy is high. The con- The long-term use of different types of bonded tinuing presence of the retention wires, however, lingual retainers was analyzed by Artun. 12 Plaque creates areas that are difficult to keep clean, thus and calculus were only occasionally registered. Car- favoring plaque formation and food impaction. This ious lesions or periodontal reactions in the region situation may lead to the development of carious surrounding the bonded wires were absent. To our lesions, TM favor the formation of calculus, and in- knowledge, only ~&~rtunet al. 13 have reported on the duce gingival inflammation and periodontal dis- differences between the use of bonded and remov- ease. 9 able retainers. Four months after debonding, no Zacchrisson, 1° one of the pioneers in the field of differences in gingival inflammation and accumula- tion of plaque and calculus could be detected in the From the Faculty of Dentistry, Free University of Brussels. lower incisor region. aAssistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics. Compared with the widespread and still increas- aProfessor and Chairman, Department of Orthodontics, School of Den- ing use of bonded lingual retainers, research reports tistry. bAssistant Professor, Department of Periodontology. on the influence of retainers on dental and peri- bProfessor and Chairman, Department of Periodontology, School of odontal tissues are scarce. In clinical observation, Dentistry. our attention was drawn to rather obvious calculus Reprint requests to: Dr. Aim~ A. De Smit, Department of Orthodontics, deposits around bonded lingual retainers in some of School of Dentistry, Free University of Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 our patients. As we had never had this impression in Brussels, Belgium. Copyright © 1997 by the American Association of Orthodontists. the formerly, more often used removable retainers, 0889-5406/97/$5.00 + 0 8/1/79813 the current investigation was designed and initiated 607
  2. 2. 608 Heier et aL American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics December 1997 All measurements were taken in the maxilla and mandible from canine to canine just before debonding (baseline) and 1, 3, and 6 months later. The same clinician scored the lingual, interdental, and buccal tooth sites. Modified Gingival Index (MGI) The MG114'I5 permits a noninvasive evaluation of early and subtle visual changes in the severity and extent of gingival inflammation. It is scored as follows: absence of inflammation (0), part of gingival unit mild inflamma- tion (1), complete gingival unit mild inflammation (2), moderate inflammation (3), and severe inflammation (4). Bleeding On Probing (BOP) Fig. 1. Fixed lingual retainer bonded in Dentaflex 0 The BOP 16 is widely used in diagnosis of gingival 0.0175 arch from canine to canine. inflammation. To obtain a standardized pressure of 25 gm, 17'18a Florida probe 19with a Michigan O probe tip was inserted into the gingival crevice. This way the probing to evaluate the differences in gingival conditions in force was standardized and could not be influenced by the patients w h o wear b o n d e d or removable retainers. clinician. Bleeding was registered after 15 seconds2°: no Moreover, differences in plaque and calculus accu- bleeding (0), point-bleeding (1), and profuse bleeding (2). mulation were analyzed. Gingival Crevicular Fluid Flow (GCFF) MATERIAL AND METHODS The examined teeth were isolated with cotton rolls Thirty-six orthodontic patients, between the ages of and cheek retractors and gently dried with the air syringe. 12.8 and 21.1 years, (mean 16.3 years) were treated with The tip of a Periopaper strip (Pro Flow Inc.) was placed at fixed Begg appliances in the upper and lower arches. the entrance of the gingival sulcus for 30 seconds. The Some of them were recruited in a private orthodontic amount of gingival crevicular fluid absorbed into the practice, others in the dental clinic at the Free University Periopaper is proportional to the digital reading on the of Brussels. A majority of patients wore retainers in both Periotron 600021-23 (Pro Flow Inc.). Values higher than 30 arches. The decision whether a removable or bonded are considered as pointing to gingival inflammation. The lingual retainer would be used after active treatment was Periotron registrations were limited to the following sites: made at treatment planning. Patients with pretreatment the mesial and buccal surfaces of the upper right central spacing or extensive incisor rotations were given perma- incisor, the distal and lingual surfaces of the upper left nent bonded retainers. The others received removable canine, the distal and lingual surfaces of the lower left retainers. The level of oral hygiene was not taken into central incisor, and the mesial and buccal surfaces of the account in the choice of retention device. Thus two lower right canine. experimental groups were created: the fixed retainer group (FRG) with 22 patients and the removable retainer Plaque Index (PI) group (RRG) containing 14 patients. At the end of active orthodontic treatment, standard Plaque was disclosed with Diaplac (OY Mdlnlycke procedures for adhesive removal, polishing, and prophy- Ab). The modified plaque index, according to Quigley and laxis were performed. The fixed retainers were bent in Hein (modification according to Turesky), 24 was regis- flexible spiral wire (Dentaflex 0.0175, Dentaurum) and tered for the buccal and lingual tooth surfaces according bonded to each lingual tooth surface from canine to to the following scale: no plaque (0), spots of plaque at the canine (Fig. 1). Care was taken not to leave any bonding cervical margin (1), thin continuous band of plaque at the substance (Super C Ortho, Amco) in contact with gingival cervical margin (2), gingival third of tooth surface covered tissues. All removable retainers had a labial arch and with plaque (3), two thirds of tooth surface covered with several retention clasps embedded in an acrylic plate. At plaque (4), and more than two thirds of tooth surface the time of retainer insertion, oral hygiene instructions covered with plaque (5). were given. The patients were instructed to brush three times a day. In order not to influence measurements, Dental Calculus Index (DCI) disinfecting or fluoride containing mouthrinsing solutions To measure the amount of dental calculus, the assess- could not be applied. The daily use of wooden toothpicks ment according to Volpe et alY was used. A calibrated for interdental hygiene was expected from patients with periodontal probe was applied at three locations of the fixed retainers, whereas patients wearing removable re- buccal and lingual sides of each lower incisor and canine: tainers used dental floss. a mesial location, at the tooth center, and a distal location.
  3. 3. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics H e i e r e t al. 609 Volume 11.2, No. 6 Table I. M e a n s of five o u t c o m e m e a s u r e s o n d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s b y t r e a t m e n t g r o u p a n d t i m e o f f o l l o w - u p Baseline measure 1-month follow-up 3-month follow-up 6-month follow-up Index Site FR RR FR RR FR RR FR RR MGI B 0.71 0.74 0.44 0.68 0.21 0.68 0.24 0,89 IB 1.71 1.40 1.01 1.02 0.56 1.23 0.66 1,40 IL 1.42 1.26 1.03 0.87 0.86 0.99 0.94 1,23 L 0.79 0.80 1.12 0.49 0.30 0.63 0.40 0,74 BOP B 0.25 0.40 0.18 0.30 0.19 0.34 0.22 0,41 IB 0.36 0.57 0,23 0.46 0.23 0.35 0.30 0.47 IL 0.50 0.70 0.37 0.43 0.32 0.45 0.30 0.40 L 0.32 0.34 0.56 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.22 GCFF B 24.57 25.56 11.I1 12.04 11.04 12.32 22.29 16.88 ID 46.91 55.27 28.31 21.71 20.07 28.98 25.46 35.18 L 15.29 15.70 16.25 4.56 8.86 10.83 8.04 11.00 PI B 2.86 2.56 1,12 1.18 1,38 1.59 1.02 1.24 L 2.78 2.78 3.34 2.50 2.82 2.43 3.03 2.52 DCI B 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L 0.20 0,05 0.13 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.20 0.06 MGI: Modified Gingival Index; BOP." Bleeding On Probing; GCFF: Gingival Crevicular Fluid Flow; Ph Plaque Index; DCI: Dental Calculus Index. B: Buccal; IB: Interdental Buccal; IL: Interdental Lingual; L: Lingual; ID: Interdental. FR: Fixed Retainer; RR: Removable Retainer. Statistical Analysis retainer types. The changes were not significant at A univariate repeated measurement analysis of vari- the lingual sites for both retainer types and at the ance (ANOVA) model was used, containing one repeated buccal sites for the removable retainers (Table II). factor (time) and one between factor (code:distinguishing After the first month, however, the mean MGI the removable versus the fixed retainer group). Each tended to increase in the group with removable analysis resulted in three P values, one for each factor and retainers, but generally these increases were not one as interaction term. Subsequently, a Scheff6 post hoc analysis calculated the significance levels of the differ- significant (Table II). At the 6-month follow-up, the ences between pairs. Throughout the entire statistical mean values remained below score 1 at the buccal analysis, a significance level ofp <- 0.05 was maintained. and lingual sites. At 6 months, the lingual sites showed a mean MGI of 1.23 and the buccal sites RESULTS showed a mean MGI of 1.40 (Table I). In the group For each of the two study groups (fixed or with fixed retainers, a reduction in MGI values was removable retainer), mean values at baseline, at found between months 1 and 3, followed by a small 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up examina- increase between the months 3 and 6 (Table II). At tions are presented in Table I. The changes through the 6-month evaluation, the mean MGI values at all time are visualized in Figs. 2 through 6. Table II sites were lower in the group with fixed retainers shows the changes from baseline to 1-month follow- than in the removable retainer group (Table I). The up, from 1- to 3-month follow-up, and from 1- to mean MGI after wearing retainers for 6 months 6-month follow-up. The differences for the five remained below score 1 for both retainer types at outcome measures between the group wearing fixed the buccal and lingual sites. The highest mean MGI retainers (FR) and the group with removable retain- after 6 months (1.40) was seen for removable retain- ers (RR) can be seen in Table III. ers at the interdental buccal sites. In contrast, for the At baseline, the mean MGI (Fig. 2) of both fixed retainer group, the lowest mean MGI (0.66) retainer groups was below score 1 for the buccal and was registered at these interdental buccal sites (Ta- lingual sites. The mean interdental values (Table I) ble I). were slightly higher in the F R than in the R R group The mean BOP index (Fig. 3) of both retainer (at the lingual aspect FRIL:l.42; RRIL:1.26 and at groups stayed below score i at all sites from baseline the buccal aspect FRIB:I.71; RRIB:I.40). These to 6-month follow-up (Table I). In all instances, the differences were only significant for the interdental mean BOP index at baseline was lower in the fixed buccal region (p = 0.0163). The mean MGI after retainer group than in the group that would receive wearing retainers for 1 month showed a tendency to a removable retainer (Table I). Statistical analysis be lower than at baseline for all sites and for both showed that these differences were only significant
  4. 4. 610 Heier et al. American Journal of Ot¢hodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics December 1997 i . . . . . . . . e - - F~G - - c o ~ : i!i 0f 2L ? 1.4 • 1.4 J 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . jJJ . . . . . . /2 ',, . . . . . . ..... 2.Y' .L -1 3 J C D Fig. 2. Modified gingival index. A, Buccal sites. B, Interdental buccal sites. C, Interdental lingual sites. D, Lingual sites. for the interdental sites (Table III). At the lingual sites were nearly identical for both retainer types sites, the mean BOP increased to 0.56 after 1 month (Table I). with fixed retainers (Table I). This change was not The lowest mean values for the gingival crevic- significant (Table III). ular fluid (Fig. 4) at baseline were found on the At the other sites, a nonsignificant downward lingual surfaces for both groups (15 periotron units). evolution of the mean BOP was noticed at i-month For the buccal sites, level 25 was reached; the follow-up for both retainer groups. With both kinds interdental sites reached up to 47 in the fixed of retainers, the changes in the mean BOP toward 6 retainer group and to 55 in the group that would get months were very small (Table II). A slight reduc- removable retainers (Table I). None of the differ- tion was observed toward the 6-month follow-up for ences between RR and FR proved to be statistically the lingual and lingual interdental sites. A tendency significant (Table III). One month later, the peri- toward an increased BOP was found for the buccal otron score had dropped for all, but one measure and interdental buccal sites (Table II). The maxi- that remained practically unchanged, i.e., the lingual mum mean BOP at 6 months was found at the sites in the fixed retainer group. Toward the 6- interdental buccal sites. However, it remained lim- month follow-up, this downward trend was stopped ited to 0.47 (Table I). At that time, the mean BOP or reversed (Table II). The values for the fixed values were slightly, but not significantly, lower in retainer group were not significantly different from the group with fixed retainers compared with the those in the removable retainer group (Table III). removable retainer group. The values at the lingual The highest GCFF values after 6 months were found
  5. 5. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Heier et al. 611 Volume 112, No. 6 i B,45 ~ f f/1 .... CE ~= F~ i!i! I ....... i ! v A B L E ~ N ~ ON ~ROBZNG=X~OENT~L ~ I N ~ U ~ ~ZTE~ ~.TS o,75 ~.SS ~.65 B,55 Z / /' -- COOE= -~ 2 3 °°i! . . . . . . . , Em~<months) D Fig. 3. Bleeding on probing. A, Buccal sites. B, Interdental buccal sites. C, Interdental lingual sites. D, Lingual sites. for the interdental sites: 35 in the removable re- remained near zero throughout the evaluation pe- tainer group and 25 with fixed retainers. The lowest riod. The mean DCI on the lingual surface at GCFF values were situated at the lingual sites: 11 in baseline was slightly above zero (0.2 ram) in the the RR group, and 8 in the FR group. group receiving a fixed retainer, whereas calculus Before debonding, comparable mean plaque in- was almost absent (0.05 ram) in the other group. dexes near 2.8 were found in the two groups on the One month 'later, the mean calculus level was buccal and lingual surfaces (Fig. 5). The buccal brought down further to 0.1 mm for the FR group value had dropped significantly to about 1.2 on the and to 0.01 mm for the RR group. At 6 months, the buccal surfaces at 1-month follow-up (Table I). It mean lingual measurements had gone up to the remained at approximately the same level at 6 original values (Table I). months, after a small but nonsignificant increase at the 3-month follow-up (Table II). The mean lingual DISCUSSION PI in the removable retainer group was reduced to At the end of the presence of fixed orthodontic 2.5 after 1 month, 2.4 at month 3, and 2.5 at the appliances on the buccal tooth surfaces, the record- 6-month follow-up. In the fixed retainer group, the ings of MGI, BOP, and GCFF for the buccal and mean PI at the lingual sites climbed to 3.3 at lingual gingival units indicate that generally only 1-month, to end at 3.0 at 6 months (Table I). This limited parts of these gingival units showed mild score was significantly higher than the score in the inflammation, very few bleeding points were removable retainer group (Table III). present, and a normal gingival crevicular fluid flow On the buccal surfaces, the mean DCI (Fig. 6) existed. For the interdental areas, the MGI pointed
  6. 6. 6"12 Heier et al. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofaciat Orthopedics December 1997 G I ~ ~RE~ICU~R ~LU~ ~ L O W : ~ C C ~ L SZ~E~ A i! ? .... COOE: -- f~ ~OE: RR6 :I 4~ r -i • C0~EZ :I L 2 3 ~0~E~ -i 2 ~ 4 - - oa.: B C t Jm~(~anths) Fig. 4. Gingival crevicular fluid flow. A, Buccal sites. B, Interdental sites. C, Lingual sites. to more complete gingival units with mild gingival The other group had the opportunity to perform inflammation, the BOP test showed the existence of completely normal oral hygiene procedures as the more point bleedings, and the GCFF was found to removable retainers were used only at nighttime. correspond with the presence of mild gingival in- Considering the change from fixed orthodontic ap- flammation. The differences between the fixed and pliances present on the buccal tooth surfaces at removable retainer groups being very small, this baseline, to naked buccal tooth surfaces 1 month suggests that the oral hygiene at the end of the later, we were not surprised to find that the three active orthodontic treatment had been acceptable indices concerning gingival inflammation tended to for the buccal and lingual tooth surfaces in both be lower at 1-month follow-up. The buccal tooth groups, but some inflammation was present in the surfaces, being easier to clean, could be considered approximal area. Somewhat more calculus was as healthy. This also applied for the lingual surfaces present at the lingual sites of the FR group. in the removable retainer group, but not for the The 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up lingual aspect with fixed retainers. There, the indices recordings have been gathered in two different scored somewhat higher, suggesting a little less situations, as far as access for oral hygiene was favorable gingival health. In the interdental regions, concerned. In one group, wires bonded to the all indices showed lower mean values at 1-month lingual surfaces of incisors and canines were cross- than at baseline, especially the GCFF dropped ing the interdental spaces. The use of wooden below 30 periotron units, taking it below the inflam- toothpicks for plaque removal in the interproximal mation limit. At all tooth surfaces, the gingival areas had been explained and required in this group. condition could be considered as healthy for both
  7. 7. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics H e i e r et al. 61:3 Volume 112, No. 6 l.e ,, i . . . . CODE* FRE -~ e t e 3 4 ~ "-'-k -'k . ..... ""-.. ....... - L i 1.B= 1.4 I L.e 0,6 0,4 ~ 0,2 .... ~E, e~E~ 0 Z 3 B Fig, 5. Plaque index. A, Buccal sites. B, Lingual sites. kinds of retainers. Some of the mean indices were a ever, these increases were not statistically signifi- little lower in the fixed retainer group, some a little cant. In general, the m e a n MGI, BOP, and G C F F higher than in the removable retainer group, but in the fixed retainer group remained below the these small differences were not statistically signifi- indices for the removable retainer group. A strik- cant. On this basis, it can be concluded that, in the ing difference between the two groups concerning scored patient groups who wore fixed lingual retain- gingival health could not be observed. The trend ers during a 1-month period, this did not lead to a toward increased values at 6 months for both gingival condition, which was more unfavorable than groups could be interpreted as an indication for that in the group wearing removable appliances. the need for r e p e a t e d motivation and oral hygiene Our assessments of MGI, BOP, and G C F F at instructions at least on a 6-month interval basis. 3-month recall appeared to bring all mean values of Further investigation could test the validity of this the group with fixed retainers at a lower level than interval on a long-term basis. those with the removable retainers worn only during In both groups, the mean buccal PI before the night. As the differences were seldom statisti- debonding was found to be very close to the lingual cally significant, we cannot state that oral hygiene values. The mean value near 2.8 shows that, at the conditions were more favorable in the group with end of the orthodontic treatment, the patients did fixed retainers. Moreover, there is even less reason not succeed in reaching a high standard of oral to accept that they had worse gingival conditions. hygiene. The mean MGI, BOP, and GCFF values Going to 6-month recall, a tendency toward discussed previously suggest that, in those regions higher indices was noticed in both groups. How- with a buccal and lingual presence of at least a
  8. 8. 614 Heier et aL American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics December 1997 ~. tv ^ ~.tB o.13 , , ; , ; %- 7 RR~ A D N A C L U U Z D XL N U L S T S E T L AC L S N E : Z G R Z E e . 24 I i e.e3 0,22 0.21 g.l.9 e,iB . , 1 7. 0.. .... ) .... B.14 i/' B. ia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e.o9 ............ o.e8 0.07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i °..3.°°' . . . . ............ . . --- CODE= FRG CODE= z.m ~ . . . . . . . . . . i RRG -B.eI - - i B Fig. 6. Dental calculus index. A, Buccal sites. B, Lingual sites. continuous band of plaque at the cervical margins, a rather small, but nonsignificant increase in plaque rather mild gingival inflammation existed. accumulation on the lingual surfaces. Until the After removal of the buccal fixed appliances, an 6-month follow-up, the measured plaque levels improvement in plaque condition was seen on the had not caused any significant gingival inflamma- buccal surfaces in both retainer groups. Continuous tion. This confirms and extends the results of bands of plaque were rarely recorded. Rather com- Artun et al. 13 of finding no significant differences monly, spots of plaque have been noticed at the in gingival inflammation nor accumulation of cervical margin. This nonideal situation of oral plaque and calculus after 4 months with fixed or hygiene remained until the 6-month follow-up. It removable retainers. could be considered acceptable because the local The deposit of calculus was nearly nonexistent gingival condition showed no real inflammation. on the buccal tooth surfaces. For the lingual sites, The lingual plaque condition in both groups this applied for both kinds of retainers. did not improve after debonding. This could be explained by the remaining lack of direct view on CONCLUSION those surfaces, which makes oral hygiene more A comparable limited gingival inflammation was difficult and seemingly less necessary. The pres- found in the presence of both types of retainers. The ence of the fixed wires was accompanied by a clinical observation of an increased tendency of calculus
  9. 9. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Heier et al. 615 Volume 112, No. 6 T a b l e II. Mean differences a n d p levels from baseline to 1 month follow-up, from 1 to 3 month follow-up, and from 1 to 6 month follow-up, for five outcome measures on different locations by treatment groups Baseline to 1-month follow-up 1- to 3-month follow-up 1- to 6-month follow-up FR RR FR RR FR RR Index Site X P X J P X P X J P X P X P MGI B -0.27 0.0540* -0.06 0.9519 -0.23 0.1474 0.00 0.9999 -0.20 0,2717 +0.21 0.2420 IB -0.70 0.0000" -0.38 0.0013" -0.45 0.0000" +0.21 0.1832 -0.35 0.0027* +0.38 0.0016" IL -0.39 0.0004* -0.39 0.0005* -0.17 0.3137 +0.12 0.6343 -0.09 0.8064 +0.36 0.0015" L +0.33 0.9436 -0.31 0.9567 -0.82 0.4913 +0.14 0.9954 -0.72 0.6077 +0.25 0.9748 BOP B -0.07 0.8420 -0.10 0.6177 +0.01 0.9999 +0.04 0.9594 +0.04 0.9763 +0.11 0.5257 IB -0.13 0.2364 -0.11 0.3140 0.00 1.0000 -0.11 0.3621 +0.07 0.7124 +0.01 0.9963 IL -0.13 0.1980 -0.27 0.0006* -0.05 0,8996 +0.02 0.9944 -0.07 0.7370 -0,03 0.9815" L +0.24 0.8963 -0.11 0.9896 -0.38 0.6653 -0.05 0.9990 -0.33 0.7662 -0.01 0.9999 GCFF B -13.46 0.1933 -13.52 0.2350 -0.07 1.0000 +0.28 0.9999 +11.18 0.3518 +4.84 0.9073 ID -18.60 0.1398 -33.56 0.0021" -8.24 0.7808 +7.27 0.8724 -2.85 0.9880 +13.47 0.4921 L +0.96 0.9994 -11.14 0.5851 -7.39 0.7904 +6.27 0.8927 -8.21 0.7318 +6.44 0.8846 PI B - 1,74 0.0000" - 1.38 0.0000" +0.26 0.3915 +0.41 0.0814 0.10 0.9209 +0.06 0.9858* L +0.56 0.0009* -0.28 0.2553 -0.52 0.0023* -0.07 0.9684 -0.31 0.1590 +0.02 0.9995 DCI B -0.01 0.2472 -0.01 0.9854 0.00 0.1102 0.00 0.9999 0.00 0.1253 0.00 0.9999 L -0.07 0.1272 -0.04 0.7354 +0.06 0.1903 0.00 1.0000 +0.07 0.1976 +0.05 0.5194 MGI: Modified Gingival Index; BOP: Bleeding On Probing; GCFF: Gingival Crevicular Fluid Flow; PI: Plaque Index; DCI: Dental Calculus Index. B: Buccal; IB: Interdental Buccal; IL: Interdental Lingual; L: Lingual; ID: Interdental. FR: Fixed Retainer; RR: Removable Retainer. *Significant atp -< 0.05. Table Ill. Mean differences and p levels between wearing fixed and removable retainers for five outcome measures on different locations by time of follow-up Baseline 1-month 3-month 6-month I I Index Site X P X I P X P X I P MGI B -0.03 0.9950 -0.24 0.1261 -0.47 0.0000" -0.65 0.0000" IB 0.31 0,0163" -0.01 0.9999 -0.67 0.0000" -0.74 0.0000" IL 0.16 0.4032 0.16 0.3597 -0.13 0.5858 -0.29 0.0185" L -0.01 1.0000 0.63 0.7108 -0.33 0.9436 -0.34 0.9403 BOP B -0.15 0.2615 -0.12 0.5010 -0.15 0.2525 -0.19 0.0789 IB -0.21 0.0051" -0.23 0.0035* -0.12 0.3196 -0.17 0.0517 IL -0.20 0.0242* -0.06 0.8250 -0.13 0.2679 -0.10 0.4466 L -0.02 0.9999 0.33 0.7708 0.00 0.9999 0.01 0.9999 GCFF B -0.99 0.9990 -0.93 0.9991 - 1,28 0.9978 5.41 0.8667 ID -8.36 0.7977 6.60 0.8887 -8.91 0.7648 -9.72 0,7126 L -0.41 0.9999 11.69 0.5042 - 1.97 0.9955 -2.96 0.9850 PI B 0.30 0.2762 -0.06 0.9830 -0.21 0.6134 -0.22 0,5321 L 0.00 0.9999 0.84 0.0000* 0.39 0.0533* 0.51 0.0040* DCI B 0.00 0.8592 0.00 0.0214" 0.00 0.8582 0.00 0.9900 L 0.15 0.0012" 0.12 0.0242* 0.18 0.0000* 0.14 0.0101" MGI: Modified Gingival Index; BOP." Bleeding On Probing; GCFF: Gingival Crevicular Fluid Flow; PI: Plaque Index; DCI: Dental Calculus Index. B: Buccal; IB: Interdental Buccal; IL: Interdental Lingual; L: Lingual; [19: Interdental. FR: Fixed Retainer; RR." Removable Retainer. *Significant atp -< 0.05. f o r m a t i o n a r o u n d fixed r e t a i n e r s w a s c o n f i r m e d . H o w - U n i v e r s i t y o f Brussels, f o r allowing u s to take m e a s u r e - ever, this difference w a s a l r e a d y p r e s e n t b e f o r e t h e place- m e n t s f r o m s o m e o f h e r p a t i e n t s a n d to G i n o V e r l e y e , m e n t o f t h e fixed r e t a i n e r , I f a p r o f e s s i o n a l p l a q u e a n d A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r in A p p l i e d Statistics, D e p a r t m e n t o f calculus r e m o v a l a c c o m p a n i e d by a s e s s i o n o n m o t i v a t i o n Statistics, F r e e U n i v e r s i t y o f Brussels, f o r his a s s i s t a n c e and oral hygiene i n s t r u c t i o n is r e p e a t e d every 6 m o n t h s , it w i t h t h e statistical analysis. is likely t h a t t h e periodontal health should not be com- p r o m i s e d by t h e p r e s e n c e o f b o n d e d lingual wires. REFERENCES W e e x p r e s s o u r t h a n k s to K a t h y Goeffers, D D S , 1. GazitE, LiebermanMA.An estheticand effectiveretainerfor loweranteriorteeth. A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , D e p a r t m e n t of O r t h o d o n t i c s , F r e e Am J Orthod 1976;70:91-3.
  10. 10. 616 Heier et al. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics December 1997 2. Wolfson J, Servoss JH. Bandless but fixed retention. Am J Orthod 1974;66: 15. Lobene RR, Mankodi SM, Ciancio SG, Lamm RA, Charles CH, Ross NH. Correla- 431-4. tions among gingival indices: a methodology study. J Periodontul I989;60:159-62. 3. Z~.r J, Zacchrisson B. Improving the handling properties of a composite resin for tun 16. Lang NP, Joss A, Orsanic T, Gusberti FA, Siegrist BE. Bleeding on probing. A direct bonding. Am J Orthod 1982;81:269-76. predictor for the progression of periodontal disease? J Clin Periodontu11986;13:590-6. 4. Orsborn OB. Bonded lingual retainers. Am J Orthod 1983;83:218-20. 17. Lang NP, Nyman S, Sern C, Joss A. Bleeding on probing as it relates to probing 5. Becker A, Goultschin J. The multistrand retainer and splint. Am J Orthod pressure and gingival health. J Clin Periodontol 1991;18:257-61. 1984;85:470-4. 18. Karayianins A, Lang NP, Joss A, Nyman S. Bleeding on probing as it relates to 6. Jacoby H. Semi indirect bonded lingual retainer. J Clin Orthod 1989;23:171-5. probing pressure and gingival health in patients with a reduced but healthy 7. Zacchrisson BU, Zacchrisson S. Caries incidence and orthodontic treatment with periodontium. A clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 1992;19:471-5. fixed appliances. Scand J Dent Res 1971;79:183-92. 19. Gibbs CH, Hirschfeld JW, Lee JG, Low SB, Magnusson I, Thousand RR et al. 8. Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Incidence of white spot formation after Description and clinical evaluation of a new computerized periodontal probe--the bonding and banding. Am J Orthod 1982;81:93-8. Florida Probe. J Clin Periodontol 1988;15:137-44. 9. Alstad S, Zacchrisson BU. Longitudinal study of periodontal condition associated 20. Lang NP, Adler R, Joss A, Nyman S. Absence of bleeding on probing--an indicator with orthodontic treatment in adolescents. Am J Orthod 1979;76:277-86. of periodontal stability. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:714-21. 10. Zacchrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers. 21. Van den Bijl P, Dreyen WP, Grobler SR. The pcriotron gingival crevicular fluid Am J Orthod I977;71:44i-8. meter. J Periodont Res 1986;21:39-44. 11. Dah/ EH, Zacchrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:619-30. 22. Bickel M, Cimasino G. Reliability of volume measurements with the new periotron 12. Lu-tun J. Caries and periodontal reactions associated with different types of bonded 6000. J Periodont Res I984;I9:313-6. lingual retainers. Am J Orthod 1984;86:112-8. 23. Tsuchida K, Hara K. Clinical significance of gingival fluid measurement by 13. ]u-tun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA, McWeill RW, Chapko MK. Hygiene status "Periotron". J Periodontol 1981;52:697-700. associated with different types of bonded orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. 24. Quigley GA, Hein JW. Comparative cleansing elllciency of manual and power J Clin Periodontol 1987;89-93. brushing. J Am Dent Assoc 1962;65:26. 14. Lobene RR, Weatherford T, Ross NH, Lamm RA, Menaker L. A modified gingival 25. Volpe AR, Kupzack CJ, King WJ. In vivo calculus assessment: part III. Periodon- index for use in clinical trials. Clin Prevent Dent 1986;8:3-6. tics 1967;5:184-93.