Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: Comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 5-year follow-up of a single-center randomized controlled trial

A comparative assessment of stability and satisfaction between two mandibular lingual retainers in orthodontic patients. A 2-year follow-up, single practice-based randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the stability of mandibular dental arch dimensions and patient satisfaction between two types of fixed retainers-3-strand round twisted (RT) and 8-strand rectangular braided (RB)-both of which are bonded to all six anterior mandibular teeth.

TRIAL DESIGN

2-arm parallel, two-center prospective randomized controlled trial.

METHODS: PARTICIPANTS

133 orthodontic patients (median age 24.6 years, 25th percentile = 17.2 years, 75th percentile = 32.4 years) were recruited.

INTERVENTIONS

These patients were randomly assigned to receive either an RT or RB wire retainer at a 1:1 ratio.

RANDOMIZATION

It was achieved using random permuted blocks of sizes 4, 6, or 8, which were concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the change in the irregularity index, with secondary outcomes including arch length; intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths; and patient satisfaction. Evaluations were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after retainer placement. Dental cast measurements were analyzed using random effects linear regression, and satisfaction was assessed at each time point.

BLINDING

Blinding of patients was not feasible. Only blinding the assessor for patient satisfaction was achieved.

RESULTS

Cast measurements remained relatively stable from T1 to T6, with no significant difference attributed to the retainer type (RT or RB). Time significantly affected all cast measurements except for the irregularity index. There was no significant correlation between retainer type or time and satisfaction questionnaire responses, although the responses varied by question. No harms were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Both RT and RB wire retainers effectively maintain mandibular arch alignment and are equally well tolerated by patients in the medium term.

Stability, survival, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization of CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 2-year follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) fixed retainers (FRs) as an alternative to multistranded FRs to maintain orthodontic treatment outcome.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to compare CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded FRs in terms of stability until 2 years. Secondary outcomes were failure rates, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization.

TRIAL DESIGN

2-arm parallel, two-centre randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in a 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. FRs were bonded at the end of treatment, and patients were recalled after 12 and 24 months. First-time retainer failures were recorded and digital impressions were taken. Arch widths and lengths, as well as Little's Irregularity Index (LII), were measured. Additionally, patients answered satisfaction questionnaires. Linear mixed models were applied for measurements and patient satisfaction. Survival analyses were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves, along with Cox-regression modelling. Cost-minimization analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): 90 in CAD/CAM and 91 in conventional group. One hundred and fifty three patients attended T24 follow-up. There were no significant differences in LII and arch dimensions between groups for failure-free patients. Within 24 months, 34% maxillary CAD/CAM FRs and 38% maxillary conventional FRs failed, along with 42% mandibular CAD/CAM FRs and 40% mandibular conventional FRs, with no significant difference in survival between groups (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: maxillary arch: 1.20 [P = 0.46], mandibular arch: 0.98 [P = 0.94]). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between groups. No harms were observed. Cost-minimization analysis showed that CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths, and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional FRs after 24 months. There were no differences in failures and patient satisfaction between groups. CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.

Striving for Perfection: How Stable Is Orthodontic Treatment When Excellent Outcomes Are Achieved? A 9-Year Post-Treatment Retrospective Study

(1) Aims: The main objective of this retrospective study was to assess the long-term stability of difficult orthodontic treatments treated to an excellent result and to correlate stability to possible prognostic factors. Secondary objectives were to observe the changes in retention protocol over time and to assess Oral Health-related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) after a long-term post-treatment follow-up. (2) Methods: Cases presented for final examination by orthodontic postgraduate students were retrospectively screened for eligibility. Eligible patients were recalled for a post-treatment recall appointment (T2), consisting of a clinical examination and intraoral scan, and were asked to complete the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14-DK). Gender, age at treatment commencement (T0), treatment modality and duration, and retention protocol were extracted from the records. At T2, the duration of the retention period was recorded, and retainers in place were clinically compared to the original retention protocol. The following variables were assessed on the sets of models at T0, T1 (end of treatment), and T2: arch length and width, overjet and overbite, Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI), Peer Assessment Rating score (PAR), and Little's Irregularity Index (LII). Multiple regression models were conducted. (3) Results: Eighty-five subjects attended T2. The mean post-treatment follow-up was 9.4 years +/- 2.4. In the upper arch, at T1, 74 patients had a combination of fixed and removable retainers, while at T2, 55 had a fixed retainer only. In the lower arch, at T1, 67 patients had a fixed retainer only, with this number increasing to 76 at T2. From T0 to T1, the PAR score improved by 96.1%, with the improvement remaining at 77.5% at T2. The stability of lower inter-canine and upper inter-premolar widths was significantly correlated with the extent of changes during treatment. The presence of a lower fixed retainer at T2 and a low LII at T1 were prognostic factors for stability. The mean weighted total OHIP-14 score at T2 was very low (1.6 ± 2.4 points). (4) Conclusions: In a sample with an initial high-severity malocclusion and treated to an excellent outcome, long-term stability was very good. Good stability can be retained when a lower fixed retainer is present at T2 and when a low LII is achieved at T1.

Failure frequency of fixed mandibular retainers after pre-treatment of the enamel surface with pumice versus sandblasting-a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

To compare retainer survival, periodontal health, and caries implications of fixed lower retainers bonded after pre-treatment of the enamel surface with either pumice or sandblasting.

TRIAL DESIGN

Two-arm parallel-group, two-center randomized controlled clinical trial.

METHODS

One hundred sixty patients (101 females, 59 males, mean age: 17.9) requiring mandibular retainers were consecutively recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to have pre-treatment of the enamel surface with either pumice (n = 80) or sandblasting (n = 80). The primary outcome was retainer survival at 3 (T1) and 12 months (T2) control. Secondary outcomes were carious lesions and periodontal health: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), calculus index (CI), and probing depth (PD). The randomization sequence was generated using an online randomization and allocation concealment was secured by contacting the sequence generator for treatment assignment. Blinding was not possible at T0 due to the nature of the intervention. Statistical analyses were carried out using the t-test, Fisher's exact test, repeated measure analysis of variance, and log rank test.

RESULTS

Overall, the risk of bonding failure at T1 was 6.7 per cent and at T2 6.9 per cent. There were no statistically significant differences in failure rate between the two groups, neither at T1 (P = 1.000) nor at T2 (P = 0.360). No statistically significant differences were found for the intercanine periodontal indices GI, PI, CI, PD, and caries between the two groups at T0 and T1. At T2, significantly more gingivitis and plaque were seen in the sandblasting group (P = 0.05 and P = 0.047, respectively) compared with the pumice group. Calculus increased during the follow-up period in both groups (P ≤ 0.001) as well as plaque levels (P ≤ 0.001 and P = 0.025, respectively). No harm was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Enamel sandblasting prior to bonding mandibular retainers is not better at preventing bonding failure.

REGISTRATION

275767 (https://www.researchweb.org/is/sverige).

A comparison of CAD/CAM-based fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Comparing computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers and conventional fixed retainers for their effectiveness in orthodontic patients using systematic review and meta-analysis of literature.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane's CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Ovid, and LILACS up to May 2023, with no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that complied with PICO questions were included, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using custom-piloted forms, relevant data were retrieved from the included studies. Then a random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis was used to pool the results. Primary outcomes were stability of treatment results measured through dental cast measurements and periodontal status, while secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 601 participants were included in the review. In the short term (≤6 months), the meta-analysis showed no significant differences in inter-canine distance or arch length between CAD/CAM and conventional fixed retainers in mandibular retainers. However, for Little's irregularity index, single-stranded stainless-steel retainers were notably worse than Ni-Ti CAD/CAM retainers at 3 and 6 months, while multi-stranded stainless-steel retainers only diverged from CAD/CAM at the 6-month milestone, despite the overall clinical inconsequence of these changes. CAD/CAM retainers were associated with a lower plaque index than traditional retainers but no significant difference in gingival index. Failure rates did not differ significantly between CAD/CAM and other types of retainers in mandibular retainers. Nonetheless, one study had a high amount of CAD/CAM retainer failures leading to the study being stopped.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term, CAD/CAM fixed retainers show promise as an alternative to traditional retainers. They may enhance periodontal health, as indicated by lower plaque index scores than conventional retainers. However, extensive research is needed to determine the long-term durability and effectiveness of CAD/CAM retainers in orthodontic treatment, particularly regarding their failure rate. Until comprehensive evidence is available, the use of CAD/CAM retainers should be tailored for each case.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO with the ID CRD42023412741.

The dark side of fixed retainers: Case series

This article focuses on on the presentation and management 9 adult patients who experienced complications because of their maxillary or mandibular fixed retainers 5-33 years after orthodontic treatment. Such complications include the development of an anterior crossbite, open bite, incisal cant, and twist- and x-effects. The detrimental effects on periodontal health were highlighted, especially in the mandibular canines. A range of fixed retainer types was identified, including flexible spiral wire bonded to 4 maxillary or 6 mandibular anterior teeth, rigid wire bonded to mandibular canines only and fiber-reinforced composite fixed retainer. Orthodontic retreatment was necessary in all patients using fixed appliances or clear aligners. Radiographic findings from cone-beam computed tomography or orthopantomogram before and after retreatment are presented when available. Despite the improvement of teeth position clinically, the cone-beam computed tomography scans taken directly after the completion of orthodontic retreatment did not show notable improvement with regards to root proximity to the cortical plates. The prevention of further complications was highlighted, including the use of dual retention, remote monitoring, frequent follow-up appointments and the importance of developing clear guidelines for monitoring patients in retention for treating clinicians and general dentists to promote early detection of adverse changes.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums. Removable retainers can be worn full- or part-time. Retainers vary in shape, material, and the way they are made. Adjunctive procedures are sometimes used to try to improve retention, for example, reshaping teeth where they contact ('interproximal reduction'), or cutting fibres around teeth ('percision'). This review is an update of one originally published in 2004 and last updated in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of different retainers and retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and OpenGrey up to 27 April 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adults who had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. We excluded studies with aligners.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Outcomes were stability or relapse of tooth position, retainer failure (i.e. broken, detached, worn out, ill-fitting or lost), adverse effects on teeth and gums (i.e. plaque, gingival and bleeding indices), and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous data, risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data, and hazard ratios (HR) for survival data, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses when similar studies reported outcomes at the same time point; otherwise results were reported as mean ranges. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index (crookedness of anterior teeth) to measure relapse, judging the minimum important difference to be 1 mm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 studies, with 4377 participants. The studies evaluated: removable versus fixed retainers (8 studies); different types of fixed retainers (22 studies) or bonding materials (3 studies); and different types of removable retainers (16 studies). Four studies evaluated more than one comparison. We judged 28 studies to have high risk of bias, 11 to have low risk, and eight studies as unclear.  We focused on 12-month follow-up.  The evidence is low or very low certainty. Most comparisons and outcomes were evaluated in only one study at high risk of bias, and most studies measured outcomes after less than a year. Removable versus fixed retainers Removable (part-time) versus fixed   One study reported that participants wearing clear plastic retainers part-time in the lower arch had more relapse than participants with multistrand fixed retainers, but the amount was not clinically significant (Little's Irregularity Index (LII) MD 0.92 mm, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61; 56 participants). Removable retainers were more likely to cause discomfort (RR 12.22; 95% CI 1.69 to 88.52; 57 participants), but were associated with less retainer failure (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98; 57 participants) and better periodontal health (Gingival Index (GI) MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02; 59 participants). Removable (full-time) versus fixed   One study reported that removable clear plastic retainers worn full-time in the lower arch did not provide any clinically significant benefit for tooth stability over fixed retainers (LII MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 84 participants). Participants with clear plastic retainers had better periodontal health (gingival bleeding RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; 84 participants), but higher risk of retainer failure (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.38 to 8.47; 77 participants). The study found no difference between retainers for caries.  Different types of fixed retainers Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) nitinol versus conventional/analogue multistrand One study reported that CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainers were better for tooth stability, but the difference was not clinically significant (LII MD -0.46 mm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.21; 66 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between retainers for periodontal health (GI MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 2 studies, 107 participants), or retainer survival (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 1 study, 41 participants). Fibre-reinforced composite versus conventional multistrand/spiral wire  One study reported that fibre-reinforced composite fixed retainers provided better stability than multistrand retainers, but this was not of a clinically significant amount (LII MD -0.70 mm, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.23; 52 participants). The fibre-reinforced retainers had better patient satisfaction with aesthetics (MD 1.49 cm on a visual analogue scale, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.22; 1 study, 32 participants), and similar retainer survival rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 7 studies; 1337 participants) at 12 months. However, failures occurred earlier (MD -1.48 months, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.08; 2 studies, 103 participants; 24-month follow-up) and more gingival inflammation at six months, though bleeding on probing (BoP) was similar (GI MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; BoP MD 0.33, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.79; 1 study, 40 participants). Different types of removable retainers Clear plastic versus Hawley When worn in the lower arch for six months full-time and six months part-time, clear plastic provided similar stability to Hawley retainers (LII MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.67; 1 study, 30 participants). Hawley retainers had lower risk of failure (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83; 1 study, 111 participants), but were less comfortable at six months (VAS MD -1.86 cm, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.53; 1 study, 86 participants). Part-time versus full-time wear of Hawley There was no evidence of a difference in stability between part-time and full-time use of Hawley retainers (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.68; 1 study, 52 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is low to very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about any one approach to retention over another. More high-quality studies are needed that measure tooth stability over at least two years, and measure how long retainers last, patient satisfaction and negative side effects from wearing retainers, such as tooth decay and gum disease.

Bruxism’s Implications on Fixed Orthodontic Retainer Adhesion

Background: Fixed retainers assist in maintaining the outcomes of orthodontic treatment. Fixed retention may be affected by bruxism. Objective: Evaluate two adhesives (an ormocer and a flowable composite) used for fixed orthodontic retention in simulated bruxism settings, compared to regular mastication, using a dual axis chewing simulator. Methods: Eighty human teeth were used. Periodontal tissues were simulated and exposed to 120,000 mechanical cycles, corresponding to 6 months of clinical service. Each set of two teeth was supplied with a pre-shaped, fixed, multi-braided, stainless steel wire retainer, in 1.5 cm portions, to establish passive contact with the lingual surface of the teeth. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was used to evaluate the shear bond strength. A stereomicroscope was used to assess the micro-infiltration. Results: There was no significant difference in the mean value of micro-infiltration between adhesives in the mastication group but in the bruxism group. During testing, one composite sample (ARI score 1) was broken in the mastication group, while three ormocer samples (ARI score 2) and one composite sample (ARI score 1) were broken in the bruxism group. Conclusions: The mean value for micro-infiltration in composite (0.31) was more than double that in ormocer (0.13).