Evaluation of the effects of different lingual retainer materials on post-treatment stability

Nur, Metli Sule; Mucahid, Yildirim

Evaluation of the effects of different lingual retainer materials on post-treatment stability

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Volume 41 (2025): Issue 1 (January 2025)

By:

Metli Sule Nur and Yildirim Mucahid

Open Access

|Jun 2025

Figures & Tables

Comparison of Little’s index irregularity index measurements within time period and between study groups

	Mean±SD					p	Bonferroni
	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	p	Post-hoc tests
Group 1	0.03 ± 0.02	0.09 ± 0.07	0.12 ± 0.12	0.13 ± 0.12	0.14 ± 0.13	0.001	T1-T2, T3, T4, T5T2-T5
Group 2	0.07 ± 0.09	0.26 ± 0.15	0.37 ± 0.22	0.52 ± 0.26	0.73 ± 0.35	0.001*	All pairwise comparisons between time periods are significant
Group 3	0.03 ± 0.02	0.10 ± 0.04	0.16 ± 0.04	0.20 ± 0.05	0.24 ± 0.07	0.001*	T1-T2, T3, T4, T5T2-T4, T5T3-T5
Group 4	0.05 ± 0.02	0.15 ± 0.06	0.27 ± 0.12	0.42 ± 0.19	0.70 ± 0.30	0.001*	All pairwise comparisons between time periods are significant
p	0.412	0.001*	0.001*	0.001*	0.001*
Bonferroni		G1-G2, G4	G1-G2, G4	G1-G2, G4	G1-G2, G4
Post-hoc tests	—	G2-G3, G4	G2-G3G3-G4	G2-G3, G4G3-G4	G2-G3G3-G4

Comparison of intercanine distance measurements within time period and between study groups

	Mean±SD					p	Bonferroni
	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	p	Post-hoc tests
Group 1	26.84 ± 0.97	26.81 ± 0.97	26.78 ± 0.95	26.76 ± 0.96	26.76 ± 0.98	0.817	–
Group 2	26.87 ± 1.50	26.67 ± 1.49	26.58 ± 1.51	26.52 ± 1.47	26.47 ± 1.47	0.001*	All pairwise comparisons between time periods are significant
Group 3	26.91 ± 0.98^a	26.88 ± 0.95^a	26.77 ± 0.96	26.71 ± 0.95	26.64 ± 0.94	0.001*	T1-T3, T4, T5,T2-T3, T4, T5T3-T4, T5T4-T5
Group 4	26.86 ± 1.05^a	26.81 ± 1.04^a	26.76 ± 1.06	26.62 ± 1.04	26.47 ± 1.05	0.001*	T1-T3, T4, T5,T2-T3, T4, T5T3-T4, T5T4-T5
p	0.328	0.001**	0.001**	0.001**	0.001**
Bonferroni		G1-G2, G3, G4	All pairwise comparisons between time periods are significant	All pairwise comparisons between time periods are significant	All pairwise comparisons between time periods are significant
Post-hoc tests	—	G2-G3, G4

Demographic characteristics across the study groups

	Material	n	sex	Age (year) Mean±SD	P*
Grup 1	0.0175” (≈0.44 mm) seven-strand SS (Ortho Technology, Tampa, Florida, USA)(Figure 1)	35	22 female 13 male	15.8 ± 1.8
Grup 2	0.022×0.016” (≈0.56×0.41 mm) eight-strand dead-soft (Bond-ABraid, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Illinois, ABD)(Figure 2)	35	23 female 13 male	15.8 ± 1.6	0.431
Grup 3	0.038×0.016” (≈0.97 × 0.41 mm) Ortho Flextech (Ortho FlexTech®, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, USA)(Figure 3)	35	23 female 12 male	16.0 ± 1.4
Grup 4	Fiber Reinforced Composite Retainer (StickTech, Turku, Finland)(Figure 4)	35	25 female 10 male	16.2 ± 1.6

Comparison of Little’s Index, intercanine distance and arch length measurements before treatment

Mean±SD					P*
	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	P*
Little’s index	4.64 ± 1.32	4.70 ± 1.14	4.74 ± 1.27	4.76 ± 1.14	0.478
Intercanine distance	26.60 ± 1.43	26.72 ± 1.24	26.56 ± 1.95	26.64 ± 1.52	0.519
Arch length	58.52 ± 3.21	59.98 ± 2.85	58.26 ± 3.50	57.80 ± 3.86	0.367

Comparison of arch length measurements within time period and between study groups

	Mean±SD					p	Bonferroni
	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	p	Post-hoc tests
Group 1	58.88 ± 2.40	58.84 ± 2.39	58.80 ± 2.38	58.80 ± 2.36	58.78 ± 2.35	0.001*	All pairwise comparisons between time periods are significant
Group 2	59.30 ± 3.08	59.23 ± 3.10	59.20 ± 3.13	59.17 ± 4.17	59.15 ± 3.11	0.010*	All pairwise comparisons between time periods are significant
Group 3	59.04 ± 2.18	59.00 ± 2.14	58.96 ± 2.14	58.93 ± 2.12	58.92 ± 2.12	0.001*	T1-T3, T4, T5,T2-T3, T4, T5T3-T4, T5T4-T5
Group 4	58.30 ± 2.04	58.26 ± 2.03	58.24 ± 2.02	58.19 ± 2.02	58.18 ± 2.00	0.001*	T1-T3, T4, T5,T2-T3, T4, T5T3-T4, T5T4-T5
p	0.328	0.341	0.363	0.362	0.408

Relation of separation from the adhesive, breakage and study groups

		N (%)				p
		Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	p
Separation from the Adhesive	No separation	33 (94.2%)	28 (80%)	30 (85.7%)	30 (85.7%)	0.046*
	Separation on 3rd month	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)	3 (8.6%)	1 (2.9%)
	Separation on 6th month	—	4 (11.4%)	1 (2.9%)	3 (8.6%)
	Separation on 9th month	—	1 (5.7%)	—	1 (2.9%)
	Separation on 12th month	1 (2,9%)	1 (2,9%)	1 (2,9%)	—
Breakage	Yes	1 (5.7%)	4 (11.4%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (25.7%)	0.002*
	None	34 (94.3%)	31 (88.6%)	35 (100.0%)	26 (74.3%)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2025-0022 | Journal eISSN: 2207-7480 | Journal ISSN: 2207-7472

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 236 - 245

Submitted on: Feb 1, 2025

Accepted on: May 1, 2025

Published on: Jun 24, 2025

Published by: Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 times per year

Related subjects:

Medicine,

Basic medical science,

Basic medical science, other

© 2025 Metli Sule Nur, Yildirim Mucahid, published by Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 41 (2025): Issue 1 (January 2025)Next article

Evaluation of the effects of different lingual retainer materials on post-treatment stability

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Comparison of Little’s index irregularity index measurements within time period and between study groups

Comparison of intercanine distance measurements within time period and between study groups

Demographic characteristics across the study groups

Comparison of Little’s Index, intercanine distance and arch length measurements before treatment

Comparison of arch length measurements within time period and between study groups

Relation of separation from the adhesive, breakage and study groups

Paradigm

My account