Search

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to compare the influence of four different maxillary removable orthodontic retainers on speech. Material and Methods: Eligibility criteria for sample selection were: 20-40-year subjects with acceptable occlusion, native speakers of Portuguese. The volunteers (n=21) were divided in four groups randomized with a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio. The four groups used, in random order, the four types of retainers full-time for 21 days each, with a washout period of 7-days. The removable maxillary retainers were: conventional wraparound, wraparound with an anterior hole, U-shaped wraparound, and thermoplastic retainer. Three volunteers were excluded. The final sample comprised 18 subjects (11 male; 7 female) with mean age of 27.08 years (SD=4.65). The speech evaluation was performed in vocal excerpts recordings made before, immediately after, and 21 days after the installation of each retainer, with auditory-perceptual and acoustic analysis of formant frequencies F1 and F2 of the vowels. Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman with Tukey tests were used for statistical comparison. Results: Speech changes increased immediately after conventional wraparound and thermoplastic retainer installation, and reduced after 21 days, but not to normal levels. However, this increase was statistically significant only for the wraparound with anterior hole and the thermoplastic retainer. Formant frequencies of vowels were altered at initial time, and the changes remained in conventional, U-shaped and thermoplastic appliances after three weeks. Conclusions: The thermoplastic retainer was more harmful to the speech than wraparound appliances. The conventional and U-shaped retainers interfered less in speech. The three-week period was not sufficient for speech adaptation.

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess, correlate, and compare users’ perceptions and preference related to maxillary removable retainers. Volunteers were recruited to use four retainer types: conventional wrap-around (CWA), wrap-around with an anterior opening (OWA), “U” wrap-around (UWA), and clear thermoplastic retainer (CT). The main outcomes were the volunteers’ perceptions, evaluated with a 100-mm visual analogue scale, and their preferred retainer. The retainers were used for 21 days each (washout intervals of 7 days). Nineteen volunteers (27 ± 4.53 years) were randomly divided into four groups that used the four retainers, but with a different sequence. Perceptions were evaluated immediately after the use of each retainer and the preference at the end of the research. Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman tests with post-hoc Tukey’s test (intergroup comparisons), and Pearson and Spearman analyses (correlations between perceptions) were applied. The WA retainers did not significantly differ among themselves. The CT was rated significantly worse in speech (p ≤ 0.001), discomfort (p < 0.001), and occlusal interference (p < 0.001), and did not significantly differ from the others in esthetics. Users preferred significant more the WA retainers in comparison with the CT retainers. The occlusal interference caused by the CT was positively correlated to other perceptions, such as changes in speech and discomfort. WA retainers presented similar preference and perceptions, but were significantly better than the CT. The CT occlusal coverage appeared to be the primary cause of its rejection.