Clinical performance comparison of a clear advantage series II durable retainer with different retainers' types


Background: The orthodontic retainers are either fixed or removable. Each has its own advantages anddisadvantages. The goal of the current study was to evaluate the new Clear Advantage Series II durable thermovacuumformed invisible orthodontic retainer material and compare the clinical performance of such retainer withthe most standard types of retainers (convention Clear Advantage Series I thermo-vacuum formed invisible retainer,Hawley, and the fixed lingual bonded retainers). The conducted study is the first attempt to evaluate and comparethe clinical performance of different retainers' types.Subjects and methods: Twenty finished fixed orthodontic patients starting the retention phase were divided into fourgroups. Each group consisted of five patients (3 females and 2 males), mean age ranged 18-30 years old. Membersof the first group were given the new thermo-vacuum formed invisible Clear Advantage Series II durable retainermaterial (CII), While the second, third, and fourth groups were given standard thermo-vacuum formed invisible ClearAdvantage Series I retainer material (CI), Hawley retainer (HR), and fixed lingual bonded retainers "cuspid tocuspid"(FR), respectively. Ten variables were applied on the twenty patients to evaluate the clinical performance ofthe four retainers' types, the ten variables were evaluated and judged by the operator with the patient as three nonparametriccategorical descriptions: superior (+), acceptable (±), and inferior (-) properties.Results: It was found that patients were compliant with all types of retainers initially, and the compliance decreasedat a much faster rate with both types of themo-vacuum formed retainers (CII and CI) than with HR and FR retainers,and patient's compliance is greater with HR and FR retainers than with CII and CI retainers. A comparison of the totalvariables of the clinical performance at total time intervals using chi-square showed that there was a significantdifference (P<0.05) in the acceptable categorical description between CII and CI retainers and very high significantdifference (P<0.001) between CII, HR, and FR retainers.Conclusion: it was found that the new thermo-vacuum formed Clear Advantage Series II durable retainer showed acombination of removable, comfortable, aesthetic, better speech, superior retention, relatively not producing badtaste and odor, hygienic, least soft tissue irritability, superior construction and chair-side time, and durable, it will bemore favorable clinical performance appliance to both the patient and the orthodontist