Main Article Content
Study Design: A questionnaire for assessing the Knowledge, Attitude and Execution of Retention and Relapse Protocols amongst Practicing Orthodontists of Vadodara was formed comprising of 18 questions. The content validity was undertaken by fourteen experts specialized in Orthodontics. The final developed questionnaire survey was run using Google form, participants included in the evaluation were 50. The participants were asked to complete the questionnaire at T1. The reliability of the Questionnaire was evaluated using test-retest reliability. After 7 days, participants were asked again to complete the same questionnaire with the questions arranged in another order compared to the previous one at T2. The first and second filled questionnaires were then assessed for test-retest reliability. Cronbach’s alpha was computed to examine the internal consistency of the formulated questionnaire.
Results: Content Validity Index revealed major rating of 3 or 4 score. The result showed the Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient for 14 items was 0.750, suggesting relatively high internal consistency and the questions are validated. Kappa (0.6-0.8) value revealed excellent reliability among all the tested 14 questions. (p<0.001). From the received data of this study found around 80% orthodontists feel that the most common factors that influenced the choice of retainer was Periodontal Status. The time period of fixed retainer was 18 – 24 months for 44%, and for removable retainer was 12 - 18 months for 50%. 76% of Orthodontists have faced breakage and 92% practitioners believe difficult hygiene maintenance with Fixed lingual Retainer. 54% have used Hawley’s Retainer to treat Relapse.
Conclusion: The developed questionnaire can be effectively used for further studies as a tool to assess the Knowledge, Attitude and Execution of Retention and Relapse Protocols. The retention protocols are strictly based personal modifications of based on experience.
World Health Organization. Constitution de l’OMS. Organisation mondiale de la Santé; 1985
Al-Moghrabi D, Pandis N, Fleming PS. The effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2016 17(1):24
Angell D. Treatment of irregularity of the permanent or adult teeth.
Johnston CD, Littlewood SJ. Retention in orthodontics. Br Dent J 2015;218(3):119–22
Gunay F, Oz AA. Clinical effectiveness of 2 orthodontic retainer wires on mandibular arch retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153(2):232–8.
Andriekute A, Vasiliauskas A, Sidlauskas A. A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention. Progress in orthodontics. 2017 Dec;18(1):1-8.
Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986;35(6):382–5
Mohsin M, Omer Z, Amin R. Orthodontic retention protocol among Kurdistan Region of Iraq orthodontists. Erbil dent j 2020 ;3(1):40–6.
Sr R, Singaraju GS, Mandava P, Ganugapanta VR, Bapireddy H, Pilli LN. A survey of retention practices and protocols followed among orthodontists in India. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13(1):S149–56.
Padmos JAD, Fudalej PS, Renkema AM. Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018 ;153(4):496–504.
Ab Rahman N, Low TF, Idris NS. A survey on retention practice among orthodontists in Malaysia. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2016 Jan 1;46(1):36-41.
Meade MJ, Dreyer CW. A survey of retention and retainer practices of orthodontists in Australia. Australasian Orthodontic Journal. 2019 Nov 1;35(2):174-83.
Jedliński M, Mazur M, Schmeidl K, Grocholewicz K, Ardan R, Janiszewska-Olszowska J. Orthodontic Retention—Protocols and Materials—A Questionnaire Pilot Study among Polish Practitioners. Materials. 2022 Jan 16;15(2):666.