journal article·2016-08-02

Comparison of the effects of different retention appliances on the oxidant–antioxidant system

Merve Goymen, Oral Sokucu, Seyithan Taysi, Tolga Topcuoglu, Mehmet Tarakcioglu

Publisher page

Abstract

The aim was to compare oxidative stress (OS) levels with different types of retention appliance. Thirty orthodontic patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 (Essix retainer), Group 2 (lingual retainer with stainless steel retainer wire), and Group 3 (lingual retainer with fiber-reinforced material). OS was assessed in the subjects’ saliva. Saliva samples were taken from the patients at T0 (before using the retention appliance), T1 (first month of retention), and T2 (third month of retention). The specimens were investigated to detect changes in total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and oxidative stress index (OSI). TAS values in Group 2 were significantly higher than in Group 3. TOS values in Group 3 were significantly lower than in the other groups. TOS values in Group 2 were lower than in Group 1. OSI values of Group 1 were higher than those in Group 2 or 3. There was no statistically significant difference among the time periods. The type of retention appliance affected OS values. A fiber-reinforced material may have a lower OSI. OS or products can affect some systemic disease; therefore, the selection of the retainer will be important on these patients.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · Oral microbiology and periodontitis research · Dental materials and restorations

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biochemistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Zirve University, Gaziantep, Turkey

References (33)

Show source-provided references
1. Sauget E · Angle Orthod · 1997 · 67 · 223
2. 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.5.25510.4041/kjod.2012.42.5.255 ↗
3. Zachrisson BU · Swed. Dent. J. Suppl · 1982 · 15 · 247
4. 10.1016/0002-9416(70)90106-510.1016/0002-9416(70)90106-5 ↗
5. Lindauer SJ · J. Clin. Orthod · 1998 · 32 · 95
6. 10.1093/ejo/cjp06210.1093/ejo/cjp062 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.04110.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.041 ↗
8. Foek DLS · J. Adhes. Dent · 2009 · 11 · 381
9. 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70085-410.1016/S0889-5406(95)70085-4 ↗
10. 10.1093/ejo/cjm07410.1093/ejo/cjm074 ↗
11. Aktan B · Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci · 2003 · 33 · 232
12. 10.1007/s12011-008-8095-x10.1007/s12011-008-8095-x ↗
13. 10.1016/0003-9861(86)90305-X10.1016/0003-9861(86)90305-X ↗
14. 10.1902/jop.2012.12017910.1902/jop.2012.120179 ↗
15. 10.1155/2014/59789210.1155/2014/597892 ↗
16. Kanzaki H · J. Dent. Res. · 2015 · 002203451557781
17. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.05510.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.055 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2003.11.01510.1016/j.clinbiochem.2003.11.015 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2005.08.00810.1016/j.clinbiochem.2005.08.008 ↗
20. 10.1093/ejo/cjr04010.1093/ejo/cjr040 ↗
21. 10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70225-710.1016/S0889-5406(97)70225-7 ↗
22. 10.1093/ejo/cjt08710.1093/ejo/cjt087 ↗
23. Kaji A · J. Aust. Orthod · 2013 · 29 · 76
24. Foek DL · J. Adhes. Dent · 2009 · 11 · 381
25. 10.4041/kjod.2013.43.4.18610.4041/kjod.2013.43.4.186 ↗
26. 10.5051/jpis.2010.40.4.16410.5051/jpis.2010.40.4.164 ↗
27. 10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70304-410.1016/S0889-5406(97)70304-4 ↗
28. 10.1042/CS2003003110.1042/CS20030031 ↗
29. 10.3109/1071576940905659410.3109/10715769409056594 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2012.05.01210.1016/j.jphotobiol.2012.05.012 ↗
31. 10.1007/s00784-010-0508-510.1007/s00784-010-0508-5 ↗
32. 10.1902/jop.2011.11042010.1902/jop.2011.110420 ↗
33. 10.3390/molecules20121983410.3390/molecules201219834 ↗