RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occlusal contact area and cast-radiograph evaluation (CRE) score changes in patients with 3 different retention protocols after a 1-year retention period. METHODS: A total of 90 patients with acceptable final occlusion according to American Board of Orthodontics CRE were equally divided into 3 groups according to the retention protocol: upper bonded retainer and lower Essix or bonded retainer (Essix group); upper bonded retainer and Hawley or lower bonded retainer (Hawley group); and upper bonded retainer and lower bonded retainer (bonded retainer group). Digital models were used to assess occlusal contact area changes after a 1-year retention period. The follow-up occlusion models were assessed with the American Board of Orthodontics CRE. RESULTS: Occlusal contact areas increased significantly in the Hawley and bonded retainer groups for all teeth except incisors. The bonded retainer group showed the greatest amount of settling, but differences with the Hawley group were not statistically significant. However, statistically significant decreases in occlusal contact areas were recorded for the Essix group except for incisors. A decrease of CRE scores was seen in the Hawley group, whereas a statistically significant increase was recorded in the Essix group. CONCLUSIONS: Both Hawley and bonded retainers allowed settling of the occlusion during the retention phase, whereas the Essix retainer did not allow relative vertical movement of the posterior teeth. The Hawley group showed improvement in the total CRE score, whereas the Essix group showed worsening.
Asunto(s)
Oclusión Dental , Retenedores Ortodóncicos , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Incisivo , Diseño de Aparato Ortodóncico , Aparatos Ortodóncicos FijosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the extent of canine distalization and the transversal changes, postdistalization gingival indices, and mobility scores between patients who were undergoing orthodontic treatment involving upper premolar extraction with (experimental group) or without piezocision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty maxillary canines of 10 patients were evaluated with split mouth design. Pre- and postdistalization dental casts were prepared and scanned with an orthodontic scanner to compare the extent of distalization and transversal changes between the two groups. The pre- and postdistalization gingival indices and mobility scores were also calculated. RESULTS: Three-dimensional analysis of the models revealed significant differences in tooth movement (lesser anchorage loss and greater canine distalization) between the experimental and control groups. Furthermore, the distalization time was shortened in the experimental group. There were no differences in the transversal changes, pre- and postdistalization gingival indices, or mobility scores between groups. CONCLUSION: Piezocision-assisted distalization accelerates tooth movement, decreases the anchorage loss for posterior teeth, and does not induce any maxillary transversal change. Moreover, piezocision does not have any adverse effects on periodontal health.