Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 1236  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission


ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 149-156

A survey of retention practices and protocols followed among orthodontists in India


1 Ex Post Graduate Student, Department of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
3 Professor and Guide, Head, Department of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
4 Reader, Department of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
5 Post Graduate Student, Department of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Gowri Sankar Singaraju
Department of Orthodontics, Narayana Dental College, Nellore - 524 003, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_615_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: There are different types of retention protocols and retainers prescribed by the orthodontists across the globe. Aim: The study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the retention practices followed by the orthodontists in India. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire link with a set of 29 questions was generated using the Google Forms App. The questions related to the basic demographic details followed by retention procedures in maxilla and mandible as related to the type of retainer, duration of wear, retention check-ups, and adjunctive procedures being followed. The Google forms were mailed to 1147 registered life members of the Indian Orthodontic Society. Results: The overall response rate was 20.1%. On receiving of the completed questionnaires, the data were statistically analyzed. Dual mode of retention, fixed retainers with removable thermoplastic resin (TR)/vacuum formed retainers (VFR) (24%) were the common type of retention in maxilla whereas the fixed bonded retainer (44.5%) was more commonly used in mandible. Full time wear of maxillary retainer was recommended by 85.2% of the respondents. The recommended duration of the fixed retainer is for 2–5 years (41.9%). Conclusion: A trend towards more dual retention instead of solitary removable or solitary fixed retention, more VFR instead of Hawley-type retainers has been demonstrated in the survey.


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

suppl
 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
    Viewed336    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded26    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal