Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 3, 2025
Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Surface Defects of Remover Retreatment File After Single and Multiple Uses
Published on: October 11, 2024
Failure frequency of fixed mandibular retainers after pre-treatment of the enamel surface with pumice versus
Tommaso Padula1, Teresia Wilhelmsson2, Julia Naoumova1,3
1Specialist Clinic of Orthodontics, Public Dental Service, Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
Background/Objectives:
To compare retainer survival, periodontal health, and caries implications of fixed lower retainers bonded after pre-treatment of the enamel surface with either pumice or sandblasting.
Trial Design:
Two-arm parallel-group, two-center randomized controlled clinical trial.
Methods:
One hundred sixty patients (101 females, 59 males, mean age: 17.9) requiring mandibular retainers were consecutively recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to have pre-treatment of the enamel surface with either pumice (n = 80) or sandblasting (n = 80). The primary outcome was retainer survival at 3 (T1) and 12 months (T2) control. Secondary outcomes were carious lesions and periodontal health: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), calculus index (CI), and probing depth (PD). The randomization sequence was generated using an online randomization and allocation concealment was secured by contacting the sequence generator for treatment assignment. Blinding was not possible at T0 due to the nature of the intervention. Statistical analyses were carried out using the t-test, Fisher's exact test, repeated measure analysis of variance, and log rank test.
Results:
Overall, the risk of bonding failure at T1 was 6.7 per cent and at T2 6.9 per cent. There were no statistically significant differences in failure rate between the two groups, neither at T1 (P = 1.000) nor at T2 (P = 0.360). No statistically significant differences were found for the intercanine periodontal indices GI, PI, CI, PD, and caries between the two groups at T0 and T1. At T2, significantly more gingivitis and plaque were seen in the sandblasting group (P = 0.05 and P = 0.047, respectively) compared with the pumice group. Calculus increased during the follow-up period in both groups (P ≤ 0.001) as well as plaque levels (P ≤ 0.001 and P = 0.025, respectively). No harm was reported.
Conclusions:
Enamel sandblasting prior to bonding mandibular retainers is not better at preventing bonding failure.
Registration:
275767 (https://www.researchweb.org/is/sverige).
More Related Videos
03:02Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins
Published on: January 17, 2025
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024