| 1. |
- Abdulraheem, Salem, et al.
(författare)
-
Teeth movement 12 years after orthodontic treatment with and without retainer : relapse or usual changes?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Orthodontics. - : Oxford University Press. - 0141-5387 .- 1460-2210. ; 42:1, s. 52-59
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: To identify if lower incisor movements after orthodontic treatment are due to the relapse of the orthodontic treatment or due to natural growth. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The subjects consisted of 92 patients who have had orthodontic treatment, divided into three groups, group 1: 38 individuals had no retainer in the lower jaw. Group 2: 24 individuals had a retainer 0.028 inch, a spring hard wire bonded to the mandibular canines only. Group 3: 30 individuals had a 0.0195-inch Twist-Flex wire, bonded to all mandibular incisors and canines. Study models before orthodontic treatment (T0), immediately after orthodontic treatment (T1), 6 years after orthodontic treatment (T2), and 12 years after orthodontic treatment (T3) were used for the measurements. The wires in groups 2 and 3 were removed after mean 2.6 years (SD 1.49). Little Irregularity Index (LII), inter-canine distance, available mandibular anterior space, and number of crowded incisors were registered. A Tooth Displacement Index (TDI) was developed to measure the tooth displacement directions at T0 and T3. RESULTS: The LII showed equal values before treatment (T0) and at the follow-up registrations (T2 and T3). But about 25 per cent of the tooth displacements at T2 and T3 did not exist before treatment, at T0. This indicates usual growth changes and not relapse of the orthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION: As about 25 per cent of the displaced incisors can be considered as an effect of natural growth, not a relapse of the orthodontic treatment, it is valuable to use a displacement index in combination with other variables for investigations of stability after orthodontic treatment. Importance of the present study is that it is possible to differ between relapse and usual growth changes.
|
|
| 2. |
- Schütz-Fransson, Ulrike
(författare)
-
Fixed mandibular retainers : a controlled 12-year follow-up
- 2018
-
Licentiatavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Fixed retainer after orthodontic treatment is an increasing retention appliance. For the mandibular incisors there are two different fixed retainers that are commonly used, either a canine-to-canine retainer bonded only to the canines or a twistflex retainer bonded to each of the mandibular incisors and canines. Increased mandibular incisor irregularity seems to be a continuous process throughout life even in untreated patients. The natural physiological changes during aging causes changes like those that occur after orthodontic treatment and the removal of retainers. There are few long-term studies that have compared patients who have had a mandibular fixed retainer with patients without retention appliance after treatment, and then compared the treated patients with untreated subjects.The overall aim of this thesis was to compare and evaluate two different mandibular fixed retainers and also to compare orthodontically treated cases with untreated long-term. This thesis is based on two studies and a PAR Index evaluation was presented in the frame story:Paper I is a retrospective longitudinal study done on dental casts and lateral head radiographs from patients who had received either a canine-to-canine retainer or a twistflex retainer after treatment. Different variables were measured, were Little’s Irregularity Index was the main outcome measure. The measurements were done at four different occasions, were the last registration was 12 years after treatment, i.e. 9 years after removal of retainer. Paper II is also a retrospective longitudinal study with three different groups, one group received a fixed mandibular retainer, one group did not receive any retention appliance after treatment and the third group was untreated subjects. Measurements were done on dental casts and lateral head radiographs at four different occasions to analyze dental and skeletal changes 12 years after treatment. Also here Little’s Irregularity Index was the main outcome measure. PAR Index evaluation is done to evaluate the stability of orthodontic treatment outcome after treatment and long-term for two different retainer groups and one non-retention group. The following conclusions were drawn: Paper I•Both the canine-to-canine retainer and the twistflex retainer can be recommended since both are equally effective during retention period.•None of the retention types prevent long-term changes of mandibular incisor irregularity or available space for the mandibular incisors after removal of the retainers.•No differences in bonding failures between the two retainers were found. Paper II•There were no differences found 12 years after treatment in Little’s Irregularity Index for the mandibular incisors between the group that had a retainer and the group that had no retainer after treatment•In the untreated group, Little’s Irregularity Index was increased over time but not to the same extent as in the treated groups. •The crowding before treatment did not explain the crowding at the last registration.•The use of mandibular retainers for two to three years does not appear to prevent long-term relapse. •If the patient wants to constrain the changes that come with natural development, then lifelong retention is needed.•The overjet and overbite were stable long-term.PAR Index evaluation•Twelve years after treatment the mean reduction in PAR score was over 70 per cent only for the groups who had a mandibular retainer after treatment. However, the non-retention group had a PAR score of 66 per cent.•There were more cases in the retention groups that were ”greatly improved and/or improved” 12 years after treatment compared to the non-retention group. After treatment between 16 and 23.3 per cent of all the cases were ”worse or not improved”. Twelve years after treatment between 36 and 43.6 per cent of the total cases were ”worse or not improved”.
|
|
| 3. |
- Schütz-Fransson, Ulrike, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term follow-up of orthodontically treated deep bite patients
- 2006
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Orthodontics. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0141-5387 .- 1460-2210. ; 28:5, s. 503-512
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term stability of corrected deep bite and mandibular anterior crowding in a sample of 62 subjects (30 patients and 32 controls). The patients began treatment at a mean age of 12.2 years (SD 1.56). The treatment consisted of non-extraction and fixed appliances in 23 subjects and functional appliances in seven. The treatment group was compared with the control group with normal molar occlusion, normal overjet and overbite, no crowding, and without an orthodontic treatment need. The registrations were made on four occasions: before treatment (T1), after treatment (T2), and at two long-term follow-ups (T3 and T4). Four registrations were also made in the control group. All measurements were undertaken on plaster models and lateral cephalograms. Treatment was found to have normalized the overbite and overjet and to have eliminated the space deficiency in the mandibular anterior region. At T4, there was a minor relapse in overbite in the treatment group (mean 0.8 mm). In the control group, the overbite underwent reverse development (bite opening by 0.7 mm) during the same period. The available mandibular incisor space, however, was -0.9 mm in the treatment group and -1.8 mm in the control group. The long-term stability of the treatment results was thus good.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schütz-Fransson, Ulrike, et al.
(författare)
-
Mandibular incisor alignment in untreated subjects compared with long-term changes after orthodontic treatment with or without retainers
- 2019
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. - : Elsevier. - 0889-5406 .- 1097-6752. ; 155:2, s. 234-242
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: The aim of this work was to analyze the dental and skeletal changes in patients treated with fixedorthodontic appliances with or without retention appliances, and to compare the changes with untreated sub- jects. Specifically, mandibular incisor irregularity was analyzed. Methods: A total of 105 children who had undergone orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both jaws were examined in 2 groups: 64 had a lingual mandibular retainer and 41 had no retainer. Retention time was 2.7 +/- 1.5 years. The untreated group consisted of 25 subjects. Measurements were done on study casts and lateral head radiographs before and after treatment and 6 and 12 years after treatment. The Little irregularity index (LII) was the most important variable. Results: No differences were found in LII 12 years after treatment between the group that had a retainer and the group without a retainer after treatment. In the untreated group, LII was increased over time, but not to the same extent as in the treated groups. Correction of overjet and overbite was stable long-term. At the last examination, the amount of overjet was almost the same in all 3 groups. Conclusions: The routine use of mandibular retainers for 2 to 3 years does not appear to prevent long-term relapse. If the patient wants to constrain natural development and changes, lifelong retainers are needed.
|
|
| 5. |
- Schütz-Fransson, Ulrike, et al.
(författare)
-
Twelve-year follow-up of mandibular incisor stability : Comparison between two bonded lingual orthodontic retainers
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Angle orthodontist. - : Angle Orthodontist. - 0003-3219 .- 1945-7103. ; 87:2, s. 200-208
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To compare the long-term outcome 9 years after removal of two different types of fixed retainers used for stabilization of the mandibular anterior segment. Materials and Methods: Sixty-four children who had undergone orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both arches were divided into two groups depending on which kind of retainer being used. Twenty-eight of the patients had a canine-to-canine retainer bonded to the canines and 36 had a bonded twistflex retainer 3-3, bonded to each tooth. Measurements were made on study models and lateral head radiographs, before and after treatment, 6 years after treatment, and 12 years after treatment, with a mean of 9.2 years after removal of the retainers. Results: No significant differences were found between the two groups at the long-term follow-up according to Little's Irregularity Index or available space for the mandibular incisors. The overjet and overbite were reduced after treatment in both groups and stayed stable throughout the observation period. Also, no differences in bonding failures between the two retainers were found. Conclusions: Both a canine-to-canine retainer bonded only to the canines and a twistflex retainer 3-3 bonded to each tooth can be recommended. However, neither of the retention types prevented long-term changes of mandibular incisor irregularity or available space for the mandibular incisors after removal of the retainers.
|
|
