Retention decisions and protocols among orthodontists practicing in Canada: A cross-sectional survey

Retention preferences and protocols of Brazilian orthodontists: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the orthodontic retention protocols used by Brazilian orthodontists.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 693 orthodontists who answered a web-based questionnaire with 22 questions regarding the participants' characteristics, their retainers' prescriptions, follow-up duration, and appliance fabrication.

RESULTS

A 20.84% response rate was recorded. Most orthodontists reported working in private dental offices (94.7%), and female practitioners comprised 59.9% of the respondents. The mean age of the orthodontists was 41.05 years, and the mean time practicing as an orthodontist was 11.28 years. For the maxillary arch, most orthodontists (57.9%) declared to use the Hawley retainer, and for the mandibular arch, 49.1% use the bonded retainer. Regarding the retention phase duration, 85.6% recommend using a permanent retainer for the mandibular arch; and for the maxillary arch, 36.2% recommended using it for 1 to 2 years. The main reason that led orthodontists to choose a retention design was related to the initial malocclusion characteristics (72.9%), and the most mentioned explanation for choosing the retainer type and protocol was clinical experience (44.5%). Most orthodontists (85.3%) would like to have access to general guidelines/protocols for retention procedures after orthodontic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the answers, retention protocols varied among Brazilian orthodontists. Brazilian orthodontists preferred to use a Hawley retainer in the maxillary arch and a fixed straight retention bonded from canine to canine (3x3) in the mandibular arch.

Three-dimensional assessment of virtual clear aligner attachment removal: A prospective clinical study

INTRODUCTION

In digital dentistry, virtual attachment removal (VAR) optimizes clear aligner therapy by enhancing efficiency for refinements and enabling prefabricated retainer production through the removal of attachments from a digital scan before the clinical removal of clear aligner attachments. This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of VAR in the maxillary arch.

METHODS

A total of 110 teeth were analyzed from a sample of 54 maxillary scans from 25 subjects. Models with attachments were virtually debonded using Meshmixer (Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and superimposed over the control group in MeshLab. Vector Analysis Module (Canfield Scientific, Fairfield, NJ) was used to calculate and analyze 3-dimensional Euclidean distances on the buccal surfaces between the superimposed models. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 23.0, IBM, Armonk, NY). The Shapiro-Wilkes (α = 0.05) test determined a nonnormal distribution of results. The Kruskal-Wallis (α = 0.05) was used to determine differences between different tooth types and the number of attachments.

RESULTS

The VAR protocol showed no statistical differences in the root mean square between different tooth segments with an overall tendency for inadequate attachment removal. No difference between the groups was found regarding the number of attachments when used as a main factor.

CONCLUSIONS

The VAR technique is precise enough for the fabrication of retainers from printed dental models in a clinical setting and is not affected by the number of attachments on the tooth.

Usage of temporary anchorage devices: A cross-cultural and cross-sectional survey of orthodontists in Australia and the UK

INTRODUCTION

Detailed insight regarding the use of temporary anchorage devices (TAD) in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) is lacking. The primary aim of the present cross-sectional survey was to investigate TAD usage among UK-based and Australian-based orthodontists. The secondary objectives were to compare TAD-related preferences and protocols between orthodontists in the two countries.

METHODS

A pilot-tested electronic questionnaire was distributed to members of the British Orthodontic Society and the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions pertained to their demographic details, and current use of TADs including protocols, treatment objectives and factors influencing their use.

RESULTS

A total of 192 responses were recorded (Australia: 122; UK: 70). One hundred and forty-two respondents (74.0%) reported using TADs as part of their orthodontic treatment, 77.0% in Australia (n=94) and 68.6% in the UK (n=48). Molar protraction was the most common procedure for which TADs were reportedly used (Australia: n=118; 87.2%, UK: n=36; 75.0%). "Loosening" was the most prevalent reported complication overall (n=124; 90.1%). "Confidence", "insufficient postgraduate education" and "availability of equipment" were the factors that most influenced the decision not to provide TADs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most orthodontists in both countries provided TADs. TAD protocols of orthodontists in both countries were reported. Similarities and differences regarding TAD-related clinical practices and procedures, complications and factors influencing the use of TADs and reasons for not using TADs were explored. Information from the present study can provide baseline data for future related studies in each country and for comparison of TAD usage in other countries.

Enhancing Orthodontic Renewal and Retention Techniques: A Systematic Review

Orthodontists have a variety of options available for retainers. Research in Orthodontics focuses on assessing outcomes important to clinicians; however, there is inconsistency in how these outcomes are selected and evaluated. This review sought to assess the effects of different orthodontic retainers on patients' quality of life (QoL). Various approaches were employed in this systematic review, and a thorough search was conducted across six databases. The review involved a comprehensive evaluation of six included studies, highlighting changes in dental structure post-treatment, emphasizing the role of extraction procedures and the quality of debonding in improving retention. The study identified key outcomes for orthodontic clinical trials, highlighting orthodontists' preferences for specific retainer types. Moreover, it discussed the impact of sociocultural influences on retention care. Involving patients actively in discussions about whether to end or extend the retention phase was deemed essential. Noteworthy improvements in occlusal outcomes were linked to extraction treatments. Gender and malocclusion severity influenced QoL before and after orthodontic treatment. The degree of improvement observed in the Class III malocclusion group was comparatively lower than that in the Class I and Class II groups. Orthodontic treatment was found to yield favorable psychological outcomes, as evidenced by notable enhancements in self-esteem and social engagement among individuals. Fixed appliances were shown to negatively affect oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), particularly for those with aesthetic and functional concerns. A consensus has been reached on the essential themes and outcomes that should be incorporated in clinical trials related to orthodontic retention for non-cleft and non-surgical cases.

The Common Retention Practices Among Orthodontists from Different Countries

Objective

To investigate the most common retention practices, factors influencing the retention protocol, and the differences among orthodontists regarding retention practices.

Methods

An online validated questionnaire was anonymously sent to 3,000 orthodontic residents and clinicians. The survey consisted of 19 questions regarding the participants' demographics, prescribed retention appliances, factors affecting retention appliance choices, and adjunctive retention procedures. Descriptive statistics, Chi2 and Kendall's Tau-b tests were applied.

Results

Five hundred fifty-five orthodontic residents and clinicians, 53.3% males and 46.7% females, completed the survey, indicating a response rate of 18.5%. Although participants' demographics, type of treatment and pre-treatment malocclusion influence the choice of retention protocols, thermoplastic retainers (TR) were the most popular retention regime for the maxillary arch for both adults (47.4%) and adolescents (42.3%). Bonded retainers (BR) were the favored option for the mandibular arch (44.9% of adults and 40.7% of adolescents). The degree of arch expansion (64.1%) and the degree of interdigitation (50.1%) after treatment were the most influential factors for the choice of the preferred type of retainers by the respondents. 68.6% of the participants thought professional retention guidelines would be useful.

Conclusion

Thermoplastic retainers were the most common retention appliances for adults and adolescents in the maxilla. At the same time, BR was the most favored retainer in the mandibular arch, with clinical experience, practice setting, and malocclusion- and treatment-related factors influencing the type of the chosen appliance. The demographic differences and the uneven participation in the survey need to be considered while interpreting the findings of this study.

Blanket or tailored prescription of retainers in orthodontics: a questionnaire-based study

OBJECTIVE

To explore retainer protocols and how they are influenced by orthodontic presentation and the nature of occlusal correction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prepiloted 45-item online questionnaire targeting orthodontists was developed. The questionnaire covered clinical preferences in terms of retainer type, fabrication, and follow-up during retention; the clinical indications for adjunctive surgical procedures; and the use of active designs to mitigate relapse in specific malocclusions.

RESULTS

A total of 206 responses were obtained. The majority of the respondents prescribed maxillary removable and mandibular fixed retainers, with almost half (49.1%) reviewing patients for more than 1 year primarily in person (95.1%). The majority prescribed vacuum-formed (69.6%) 1-mm-thick (44.3%) retainers. Only 37.3% were aware of the type of material used, with polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolymer, followed by polypropylene, being the most common. Hawley retainers were preferred following nonsurgical maxillary expansion and with suboptimal interdigitation. A preference for clear retainers and/or fixed retainers was found in open-bite cases and deep-bite cases. Supracrestal fiberotomy was prescribed commonly (61.1%) for rotations greater than 90°. No retainer was rarely prescribed except after the correction of an anterior crossbite.

CONCLUSIONS

Blanket prescription of orthodontic retention is common, with limited awareness of clear plastic retainer materials. Future trials evaluating the effectiveness of approaches for retainer prescription based on the presenting malocclusion would be timely.

Diagnostic compatibility of various fixed orthodontic retainers for head/neck MRI and dental MRI

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic MRI compatibility of different fixed orthodontic retainers using a high-resolution 3D-sequence optimized for artifact reduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Maxillary and mandibular retainers made of five different materials were scanned in vitro and in vivo at 3 T MRI using an MSVAT-SPACE sequence. In vitro, artifact volumes were determined for all maxillary and mandibular retainers (AVmax; AVmand). In vivo, two independent observers quantified the extent of artifacts based on the visibility of 124 dental and non-dental landmarks using a five-point rating scale (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = acceptable, 4 = poor, 5 = not visible).

RESULTS

Rectangular-steel retainers caused the largest artifacts (AVmax/AVmand: 18,060/15,879 mm3) and considerable diagnostic impairment in vivo (mean landmark visibility score ± SD inside/outside the retainer areas: 4.8 ± 0.8/2.9 ± 1.6). Smaller, but diagnostically relevant artifacts were observed for twistflex steel retainers (437/6317 mm3, 3.1 ± 1.7/1.3 ± 0.7). All retainers made of precious-alloy materials produced only very small artifact volumes (titanium grade 1: 70/46 mm3, titanium grade 5: 47/35 mm3, gold: 23/21 mm3) without any impact on image quality in vivo (each retainer: visibility scores of 1.0 ± 0.0 for all landmarks inside and outside the retainer areas).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to steel retainers, titanium and gold retainers are fully compatible for both head/neck and dental MRI when using MSVAT-SPACE.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study demonstrates that titanium and gold retainers do not impair the diagnostic quality of head/neck and dental MRI when applying an appropriate artifact-reduction technique. Steel retainers, however, are not suitable for dental MRI and can severely impair image quality in head/neck MRI of the oral cavity.