Comparison of vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: A systematic review

被引:60
|
作者
Mai, Wenjia [1 ]
He, Jin'an [1 ]
Meng, Hongying [1 ]
Jiang, Yanping [1 ]
Huang, Chaoxiao [1 ]
Li, Min [1 ]
Yuan, Kan [1 ]
Kang, Na [1 ]
机构
[1] Guangxi Med Univ, Coll Stomatol, Dept Orthodont, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, Peoples R China
关键词
OCCLUSAL CONTACT CHANGES; RETENTION PROCEDURES; PROTOCOLS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.01.019
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Introduction: Hawley retainers (HRs) and vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) are the 2 most commonly used retainers in orthodontics. However, the basis for selection of an appropriate retainer is still a matter of debate among orthodontists. In this systematic review, we evaluated the differences between VFRs and HRs. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, and Pro-Quest) were searched with no language restriction. The relevant orthodontic journals and reference lists were checked for all eligible studies. Two article reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the primary studies. Results: A total of 89 articles were retrieved in the initial search. However, only 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. Some evidence suggested that no difference exists to distinguish between the HRs and VFRs with respect to changes in intercanine and intermolar widths after orthodontic retention. In terms of occlusal contacts, cost effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and survival time, there was insufficient evidence to support the use of VFRs over HRs. Conclusions: Additional high-quality, randomized, controlled trials concerning these retainers are necessary to determine which retainer is better for orthodontic procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:720 / 727
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Assessment of the effect of vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers on periodontal health: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Bowen
    Xu, Yifeng
    Lu, Cailian
    Wei, Zhenheng
    Li, Yongyue
    Zhang, Jinghui
    PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (07):
  • [4] Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers
    Hichens, Lisa
    Rowland, Heidi
    Williams, Alison
    Hollinghurst, Sandra
    Ewings, Paul
    Clark, Steven
    Ireland, Anthony
    Sandy, Jonathan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2007, 29 (04) : 372 - 378
  • [5] A retrospective randomized double-blind comparison study of the effectiveness of Hawley vs vacuum-formed retainers
    Barlin, Stephen
    Smith, Roland
    Reed, Ray
    Sandy, Jonathan
    Ireland, Anthony John
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2011, 81 (03) : 404 - 409
  • [6] Acceptability comparison between Hawley retainers and vacuum-formed retainers in orthodontic adult patients: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial
    Saleh, Mohammed
    Hajeer, Mohammad Y.
    Muessig, Dieter
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2017, 39 (04) : 453 - 462
  • [7] The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: A single-center randomized controlled trial
    Rowland, Heidi
    Hichens, Lisa
    Williams, Alison
    Hills, Darren
    Killingback, Norman
    Ewings, Paul
    Clark, Steven
    Ireland, Anthony J.
    Sandy, Jonathan R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2007, 132 (06) : 730 - 737
  • [8] Wear resistance of vacuum-formed retainers
    Ponikvar, Michael
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2014, 146 (05) : 552 - 552
  • [9] Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review
    Eleftherios G. Kaklamanos
    Maria Kourakou
    Dimitrios Kloukos
    Ioannis Doulis
    Smaragda Kavvadia
    Odontology, 2017, 105 : 237 - 247
  • [10] Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review
    Kaklamanos, Eleftherios G.
    Kourakou, Maria
    Kloukos, Dimitrios
    Doulis, Ioannis
    Kavvadia, Smaragda
    ODONTOLOGY, 2017, 105 (02) : 237 - 247