American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Original articleThe effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: A single-center randomized controlled trial
Section snippets
Material and methods
This clinical trial was set in an orthodontic practice; this allowed for the recruitment of a large sample of patients treated by 1 orthodontist.5 The study was approved by the Local Research and Ethics Committee at the United Bristol Healthcare Trust (approval number E5421). Patients who were due to have their fixed orthodontic appliances removed were assessed by the orthodontist for inclusion in the trial according to the following criteria: treated under the NHS by the same orthodontist;
Results
Three hundred fifty-five subjects (172 Hawley, 183 VFR) attended for the 6-month review appointment, giving a completion rate of 89%. One hundred fifty-five models were analyzed in the Hawley group and 155 in the VFR group (Fig 8).
Both groups had a median change in overjet between T1 and T2 of 0.5 mm (P = .24). In 54 subjects (32%) in the Hawley group and 49 subjects (27%) in the VFR group, a change in overbite was observed at T2 (P = .32). Overall, there was no statistically significant
Discussion
Conducting this study in a practice setting enabled the research team to recruit and randomize 397 patients treated by 1 operator over a relatively short time period (18 months). To date, this is the largest such clinical trial on the effectiveness of the Hawley and the VFR.
In this study, the retainer groups matched favorably for baseline characteristics, and it is therefore likely that the 2 groups were equally matched and that the randomization process worked well.
No statistically significant
Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that VFRs are more effective than Hawley retainers at holding corrections of the maxillary and mandibular labial segments. This is likely to be clinically significant only in the mandibular arch if located to a single tooth displacement. In addition, this trial supports the need for further research in primary care.
References (11)
Clinical and histological observations on tooth movement during and after orthodontic treatment
Am J Orthod
(1967)- et al.
Practice-based randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of an electric and a manual toothbrush on gingival health in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances
J Dent
(1998) - et al.
Reliability and validity of a computer-based Little irregularity index
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2003) The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment
Am J Orthod
(1975)- et al.
An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1988)
Cited by (119)
Comparison of 2 different wear protocols of vacuum-formed retainers with respect to the conventional parameters and 3-dimensional superimpositional analysis
2023, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsAntimicrobial efficacy, optical properties and flexural strength following antimicrobial photodynamic therapy over vacuum-formed orthodontic retainers
2022, Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic TherapyRetention decisions and protocols among orthodontists practicing in Canada: A cross-sectional survey
2022, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsSome thoughts on retainers: A narrative reflection
2022, AJO-DO Clinical Companion
Funded by the Special Trustees of the United Bristol Healthcare Trust (grant reference number: DE/2202/1331).