@article{Oh2023c,

title = {Survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers: comparison of a tube-type retainer and conventional multistrand retainers : A prospective randomized clinical trial },

author = {Lee KC and Lim SW and Cho Jh and Oh H and Hwang HS},

url = {https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36847790/},

doi = {10.1007/s00056-023-00447-5},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-02-27},

journal = {Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics},

abstract = {Objective: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the survival rate of a tube-type mandibular fixed retainer and compare it to conventional multistrand retainers.



Materials and methods: In all, 66 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study. They were allocated randomly to a tube-type retainer group or a 0.020 multistrand fixed retainer group. In case of the tube-type retainer, a thermoactive 0.012 NiTi was placed into 6 mini-tubes passively bonded to the anterior teeth. The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after retainer placement. During the 2‑year follow-up period, any first-time failure of retainers was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the failure rates between the two types of retainers.



Results: Of the 34 patients, 14 (41.2%) showed failure in the multistrand retainer group, whereas only 2 of 32 (6.3%) reported failure in the tube-type retainer group. There was a statistically significant difference in failure between the multistrand retainer and the tube-type retainer (log-rank test, P = 0.001). The hazard ratio was 11.937 (95% confidence interval 2.708-52.620; P = 0.005).



Conclusion: The tube-type retainer can be used with fewer concerns about recurrent retainer detachments during orthodontic retention.},

keywords = {dental adhesives, device failure, lingual bonded retainer, Mandibular fixed retainer, Orthodontic appliances fixed, Randomized clinical trials},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}