A retrospective randomized double-blind comparison study of the effectiveness of Hawley vs vacuum-formed retainers.
OBJECTIVE
To compare Hawley with vacuum-formed retainers.


METHODS
Eighty-two patients who had received treatment with upper and lower fixed appliances were randomly assigned either a Hawley or a vacuum-formed retainer. Study models were fabricated for each patient on day of debond and 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months after debond. Using a specially constructed pantograph, four variables were measured for each set of models at each of these time periods. These were upper and lower intermolar widths, intercanine widths, arch length, and a modified Little's index of irregularity. Method error was determined by repeating the measurements on 10 sets of models.


RESULTS
For each of the variables under test and at each of the four time periods, there were no statistically significant differences (α  =  .05) between each of the two retainers, vacuum-formed and Hawley.


CONCLUSIONS
The degree of relapse that is likely to occur following a course of fixed appliance therapy is unlikely to be affected by the choice of retainer, vacuum-formed or Hawley. Therefore, when deciding on the type of retainer to be fitted following fixed appliance therapy, other factors such as cost may play a more significant role.
Department of Orthodontics, North Hampshire Hospital, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK.
Stephen
S
Barlin
Roland
R
Smith
Ray
R
Reed
Jonathan
J
Sandy
Anthony John
AJ
Ireland
D000293:Adolescent; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002508:Cephalometry / Q000379:methods; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008310:Malocclusion / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D003765:Models, Dental; D016382:Orthodontic Appliance Design / Q000379:methods; D018704:Orthodontic Retainers; D011862:Radiography, Panoramic; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D055502:Secondary Prevention
Br Dent J. 1966 Apr 19;120(8):355-63
5218208
Angle Orthod. 1980 Jul;50(3):189-217
6996533
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 May;113(5):507-14
9598608
Angle Orthod. 1990 Summer;60(2):99-106
2344073
Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):954-9
18004927
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Apr;32(2):165-70
19797411
J Clin Orthod. 1998 Feb;32(2):95-7
9709631
Am J Orthod. 1985 Jan;87(1):27-38
3855348
Angle Orthod. 1991 Summer;61(2):133-44
2064071
Am J Orthod. 1982 Dec;82(6):456-63
6961816
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD002283
16437443
J Can Dent Assoc. 1998 Oct;64(9):640-3
9812432
Eur J Orthod. 2007 Aug;29(4):372-8
17702797
Aust Orthod J. 2009 Nov;25(2):142-6
20043549
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994 Sep;106(3):243-9
8074088
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Sep;124(3):294-7
12970663
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):730-7
18068589
Am J Orthod. 1975 Nov;68(5):554-63
1059332
Biometrics. 1989 Mar;45(1):255-68
2720055
World J Orthod. 2007 Fall;8(3):300-6
17902334
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Nov;108(5):478-88
7484967