Wiranto, M.G. (Matthew) (2009) Glass Fiber Reinforced Composite Retainers : The new standard in orthodontic retention? : A case controlled trial. thesis, Dentistry.
![[img]](https://umcg.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Wiranto.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (31MB) |
Abstract
Introduction: Stainless steel wire orthodontic retainers placed after orthodontic treatment in order to stabilize the position of the teeth have a relatively high rate of debonding, which has negative consequences for the treatment results. Fiber technology has been introduced for dental applications. Also in orthodontics Fiber Reinforced Composites (FRCs) have been recommended for both active and passive applications. It is thought that perhaps fibers would be a suitable replacement as splinting material after orthodontic treatment because of their chemical bonding properties to both the composite and the enamel. Objective: The aim of this case controlled trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of Glass Fiber Reinforced Composite (GFRC) orthodontic retainers in the mandible. Materials and Methods: At the department of Orthodontics at the University Medical Centre of Groningen (UMCG), the Netherlands, a total of fifteen patients recieved a GFRC retainer (Everstick® ORTHO). The GFRC retainers were placed in the mandible and evaluated at placement and at the follow up visits ( 1 month and 3 months). An evaluation form was made that consisted of three parts, namely: failure type, qualitive results of the GFRC retainer and periodontal conditions. An evaluation form based on the VAS-score was made to evaluate patients' satisfaction. Results: Out of the fifteen patients, eight patients could be followed up for control visits. The patient population consisted of three men and five women with a mean age of 19 years. The results were as follows: 1. Failure types: a. adhesive failure enamel/composite (50o/o) b. adhesive failure fiber/composite (25%) c. cohesive failure composite (25% ). 2. Qualitive results of the GFRC retainers: the surface roughness increased in time. 3. Periodontal conditions: more plaque, calculus and gingival inflammation was seen after placing the GFRC retainer. 4. Patient satisfaction: Generally the patients were quite satisfied with the treatment results. Overall the GFRC retainer in the mandible is scored more positively than the stainless steel wire retainer in the maxilla. In total four out of the eight patients (50%) had problems with their GFRC retainer in the first 3 months. These problems were mostly associated with the bonding between the different structures/materials and cohesive composite failures. The surface roughness increased in time. After 3 months half of the GFRC retainers (50%>) were 'slightly rough or pitted'. The GFRC retainers had a negative effect on periodontal health, but the occasional accumulation of plaque and calculus on the lingual surfaces of the incisors along the GFRC retainers resulted in no caries formation along the retainers. Conclusion: The GFRC retainer is finer, thinner, more esthetic, less striking and keeps the teeth better in place, however half of them (50%) were not problem free.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Thesis) |
|---|---|
| Supervisor name: | Ozcan, M.Prof. Dr. med. dent Faculty of Dentistry and Lie Sam Foek, D.J. D.D.S. |
| Faculty: | Medical Sciences |
| Date Deposited: | 25 Jun 2020 10:53 |
| Last Modified: | 25 Jun 2020 10:53 |
| URI: | https://umcg.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/id/eprint/1389 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |