• Users Online: 69
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 18-22

Postretention phase: Patients' compliance and reasons for noncompliance with removable retainers


1 Interns Affairs Unit, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Orthodontic and Pedodontic, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Saeed Banabilh
Department of Orthodontic and Pedodontic, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, P. O. Box 6700, Buraydah 51412
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijor.ijor_27_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Retention is considered as an important phase at the end of any active orthodontic tooth movement. Aims: The purposes of this study were to compare compliance between Hawley retainer (HR) and vacuum formed retainers (VFRs) and to detect the reasons for noncompliance. Materials and Methods: Questionnaires were distributed to those who had an orthodontic treatment and currently have experience with the orthodontic retainer. Items included demographic information and questions pertaining to treatment satisfaction, perceived responsibility for retention, type of retainer prescribed, Likert scale to detect the reasons for discontinuing use of retainers, and relapse. Chi-square and t-test were used to compare the data. Results: Out of the 150 questionnaires distributed, 98 returned and seven were excluded from the study. The compliant groups were 40, whereas the noncompliant group were 51. Sixty-four (70.3%) of the participants were using HR, whereas 27 (29.7%) were using VFRs retainer. Seventeen percent (Hawley) and 15% (VFRs) of the participants who did not comply reported that they had lost their retainer. For both retainers, those participants who did not comply, the majority agreed that they do not wear their retainer because it affects their eating (84.3%), speech (56.9%), comfort (47.1%), and breath odour (43.1%). A statistically significant difference in compliance levels in relation to the length of time since debond was also found (P < 001). Conclusions: The participants were more compliant with Hawley's than VFRs retainers and a significant difference in compliance levels in relation to the length of time since debond was found.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed111    
    Printed9    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded23    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal