| Author, year |
Country |
Study design |
Number
of patients (n) |
With
drawals
-
dropouts |
Results |
Comments |
Intervention
Fixed retainer |
Control
No retainer |
| Levin, [16] |
Israel |
CT |
n=92
Group 1: n=48 dental arches
Group 2: n=72 dental arches |
n=0 |
Group 1
Lingual 82.4% |
Group 2
Lingual 51.6%
p<0.0001, between groups |
Group 1 = One or two fixed retainers.
Group 2 = No retainer. |
| Rody, [15] |
Canada |
CT |
n=31
Group 1: n=10
(Group 2: n=11)
Group 3: n=10 |
? a |
Group 1
Incisors: 60% (sd 51.6)
Premolars: 10% (sd 31.6) |
Group 3
Incisors: 10% (sd 31.6)
p=0.03, between groups
Premolars: 0% (sd 0)
ns. between groups |
Group 1 = 3-3 fixed lower retainer.
Group 2 = Removable lower retainer.
Group 3 = No retainer. |
| Artun, [14] |
Norway |
CT |
n=108
Group 1: n= 31
Group 2: n=18
Group 3: n=14
(Group 4: n=20)
Group 5: n= 25 |
? a |
Group 1 and Group 2
Interproximal
Mean: 0.94 (sd 0.57)
Lingual
Mean: 0.59 (sd 0.48)
Group 3
Interproximal
Mean: 0.20 (sd 0.25)
Lingual
Mean: 0 (sd 0) |
Group 5
Interproximal
Mean: 1.12 (sd 0.59)
ns. between groups
Lingual
Mean: 0.62 (sd 0.48)
ns. between groups
Group 3 was not
compared to group 5 |
Plaque along the gingival margin
Group 1 = Mandibular cuspid retainer .032 spiral wire.
Group 2 = Mandibular cuspid retainer .032 plain wire.
Group 3 = Maxillary .0195 flexible spiral wire retainer.
Group 4 = Maxillary retainer plate
Group 5 = No retainer
Cuspid retainer = bonded only to cuspids
3-3- retainer = bonded to each tooth.
|
