Title: Comparison of the Patient’s Satisfaction, Aesthetic, Cost Effectiveness and Speech Problem in Hawley’s Retainer and Invisible (Clear) Retainer Question Based Study in Ahmadabad
Authors: Parmar DM, Prajapti D, Patel NK, Brahmbhatt D, Shah MD, Shah HG
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v4i7.28
Abstract
Aim: To compare simple retainer (Hawley’s) and invisible (clear) retainer in people of Ahmadabad city.
Material & Methodology: The present cross-sectional questioner study was conducted in Ahmedabad city. The study sample includes 80 orthodontically treated subject, Ahmadabad .The survey was schedule to spread over a period of 3 Months. Data was collected by using self questionary (Annexure C). Questionary was administrated by investigator himself to each participant on schedule day and collecting the data. The data was collected using questioner the collected data was coded, compiled, tabulated. The data was analyzed by applying descriptive & inferential statistical analysis. Analysis was carried out using SPSS packaged version 17.
Result: It was found that with invisible retainer, patients were more satisfied compared to hawley’s retainer .And patients compliance is grater with hawley’s retainer in speech and aesthetic appearance than invisible retainer. There is also conclusion that the invisible retainer is more cost effective than the hawley’s retainer.
Conclusion: It was found that the invisible retainer showed a combination of removable aesthetic, comfortable cost effective, hygienic and durable least effect on speech. It will be more favorable clinical performance appliance to the patients which are more censer with appearance of retainer.
Keywords: Orthodontically treated, Hawley retainer, Invisible retainer (clear).
References
1. ProffitWR.Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo.: Elsevier/Mosby; 2013:754.
2. Sawhney, Bhavana, "Orthodontic Retainers: A Survey of Patient Compliance and Satisfaction" (2013). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. Paper 1917.
3. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: A systematic review. J Orthod. 2006;33(3):205-212.
4. 4 .IyyerBhalajhiSundaresa. Orthodontics The art and Science.4th ed. New Delhi, Mo.: Arya(medi) Publeshinggouse.
5. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A, et al. The effectiveness of hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: A singlecenter randomized controlled trial. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop. 2007;132(6):730-737.
6. Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG, Sheridan JJ. Orthodontic retention and stability: A clinical perspective. J ClinOrthod. 2007;41(3):125-132.
7. Kumar AG, Bansal A. Effectiveness and acceptability of essix and begg retainers: A prospective study. Aust Orthod J. 2011;27(1):52-56.
8. Sheridan JJ, LeDoux W, McMinn R. Essix retainers: Fabrication and supervision for permanent retention. J Clin Orthod. 1993;27(1):37-45.
9. Millett DT, McDermott P, Field D. Dental and periodontal health with boned and vacuum-formed retainers. . 2008.
10. Mustafa M. Al-Khatieeb. Clinical performance comparison of a clear advantage series II durable retainer with different retainers' types. J BaghColl Dentistry 2012;24(2):127-136.
11. Thickett E, Power S. Clinical trial of thermoplasticretainer wear. Europ. J. Orthod. 2010; 32:1-5.
12. George K, James K, David F, David A, Pratt M.Evaluation of retention protocols among members ofthe American Association of Orthodontists in the United States. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2011;140(4):520-526.