Difference in Orthodontic Patients’ Perceptions of Essix and Hawley Retainers


  • Putri I. Kusumawardhani
  • Krisnawati E. Tarman
  • Benny M. Soegiharto


Orthodontics, Orthodontic Appliances, Removable, Visual Analog Scale


Objective: To determine differences in how orthodontic patients perceive the aesthetics relating to the use of Essix and Hawley retainers. Material and Methods: Photographs of a female patient using an Essix retainer and a Hawley retainer, respectively, were assessed by 70 orthodontic patients aged between 21 and 55 years. All participants were provided with the same images of the two retainer types being worn and were asked to grade the aesthetics of each retainer using a visual analog scale. The significance of differences in orthodontic patient perceptions of aesthetics in the use of Essix and Hawley Retainers in the young adult and adult age groups were tested using the Mann-Whitney test with assumed significance p<0.01. Results: There were differences in participants’ perceptions between the two retainers that were statistically significant, with responses varying between young adults aged 21 to 35 years and adults aged 36 to 55 years. According to the VAS, the two retainers’ average scores in the total population are 82 for Essix Retainer and 60 for Hawley Retainer in both groups. Conclusion: The Essix retainer as a retention appliance is considered more aesthetically pleasing than the Hawley retainer among both young and middle-aged adults.


Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: A systematic review. J Orthod 2006;33(3):205-12. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021624

Kahl-Nieke B, Fischbach H, Schwarze CW. Post-retention crowding and incisor irregularity: a long-term follow-up evaluation of stability and relapse. Br J Orthod 1995;22(3):249-57. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.22.3.249

Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Lindstrom AF. Patient compliance with orthodontic retainers in the postretention phase. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011;140(2):196-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.035

Renkema AM, Sips ET, Bronkhorst E, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A survey on orthodontic retention procedures in the Netherlands. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(4):432-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn131

Johnston CD, Littlewood SJ. Retention in orthodontics. Br Dent J 2015;218(3):119-22. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.47

Demir A, Babacan H, Nalcaci R, Topcuoglu T. Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. Korean J Orthod 2012; 42(5):255-62. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2012.42.5.255

Ab Rahman N, Low TF, Idris NS. A survey on retention practice among orthodontists in Malaysia. Korean J Orthod 2016; 46(1):36-41. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.36

Ahmad OB, Boschi-pinto C, Lopez AD. Age standardization of rates: a new WHO standard. GPE Discussion Paper Series: No.31. WHO; 2001.

Indonesia KK. Profil Kesehatan Indonesia 2010. Indones Sehat 2010 2014; 4(3):654-61. [In Indonesian].

Valiathan M, Hughes E. Results of a survey-based study to identify common retention practices in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010; 137(2):170-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.023

Feu D, Catharino F, Duplat CB, Capelli Junior J. Esthetic perception and economic value of orthodontic appliances by lay Brazilian adults. Dent Press J Orthod 2012; 17(5):102-14. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512012000500015

Jeremiah HG, Bister D, Newton JT. Social perceptions of adults wearing orthodontic appliances: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33(5):476-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq069

Schott TC, Schlipf C, Glasl B, Schwarzer CL, Weber J, Ludwig B. Quantification of patient compliance with Hawley retainers and removable functional appliances during the retention phase. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2013; 144(4):533-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.020

Al-Zarea BK. Satisfaction with appearance and the desired treatment to improve aesthetics. Int J Dent 2013; 2013: 912368. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/912368

Albarakati S. Self perception of malocclusion of saudi patients using the aesthetic component of the IOTN index. Pakistan Oral Dent J 2007; 27(1):45-52.

Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF, Firestone AR, Christensen JC. Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138(6):698.e1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.012

Flores-Mir C, Silva E, Barriga MI, Lagravère MO, Major PW. Lay person’s perception of smile aesthetics in dental and facial views. J Orthod 2004; 31(3):204-9. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225022416

Mollov ND, Lindauer SJ, Best AM, Shroff B, Tufekci E. Patient attitudes toward retention and perceptions of treatment success. Angle Orthod 2010; 80(4):468-73. https://doi.org/10.2319/102109-594.1

Heller GZ. How to analyze the Visual Analogue Scale: Myths, truths and clinical relevance. Scand J Pain 2016; 13:67-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.06.012

Zaera A, Sghaireen M, Alomari WM. Black triangle causes and management : a review of literature. Br J Appl Sci Technol 2015; 6(1). https://doi.org/10.9374/BJAST/2015/11287

Ellen EK, Schneider BJ, Sellke T. A comparative study of anchorage in bioprogressive versus standart edgewise treatment in Class II correction with intermaxillary elastic force. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 114(4):430-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70189-1

Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 1983; 16(1):87-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(83)90088-X

Pithon MM, Bastos GW, Miranda NS, Sampaio T, Ribeiro TP, Nascimento LE, et al. Esthetic perception of Black spaces between maxillary central incisors by different age groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143(3):371-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.020

Meade MJ, Millett DT, Cronin M. Social perceptions of orthodontic retainer wear. Eur J Orthod 2014; 36(6):649-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt087

Wild J. Patient preference and compliance between Hawley retainers and vacuum-formed retainers following orthodontic treatment. [Dissertation]. University of Louisville, School of Dentistry. 2013. Paper 1570. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/1570.

Singh P, Grammati S, Kirschen R. Orthodontic retention patterns in the United Kingdom. J Orthod 2009; 36(2):115-21. https://doi.org/10.1179/14653120723040




How to Cite

Kusumawardhani, P. I. ., Tarman, K. E. ., & Soegiharto, B. M. . (2021). Difference in Orthodontic Patients’ Perceptions of Essix and Hawley Retainers. Pesquisa Brasileira Em Odontopediatria E Clínica Integrada, 21, e6063. Retrieved from https://revista.uepb.edu.br/PBOCI/article/view/774



Original Articles