Evidence-based retention: Where are we now?

Orthodontic retainers: are they all the same?

INTRODUCTION

It is known that the stability of the results obtained with orthodontic treatment depends, in addition to the functional and aesthetic aspects, also on the adequate planning of the retention devices, the patient's compliance with this new phase, and the physiological changes that the human body experiences over the years, throughout the craniofacial aging process.

OBJECTIVE

This article discusses the importance of the orthodontic retention phase and the influence of diagnosis, planning and execution of corrective treatment of malocclusions, in order to achieve the expected success.

METHODS

Throughout the text, different types of retainers and approaches during this phase will be presented, with the aim of ensuring the stability of the results obtained after correcting problems in the vertical, transverse and anteroposterior directions.

RESULTS

Orthodontic retainers are not all the same. The retention protocol must be performed in an individualized and planned manner, taking the initial dental positions as a reference.

CONCLUSIONS

The orthodontist must inform the patient and parents about important aspects of how to maintain the occlusion achieved with orthodontic treatment. The retainers installed after the end of corrective treatment are not everlasting, they can suffer damage with use and must be replaced. Therefore, the patient must be aware of the importance of using retainers as prescribed by the orthodontist, and of returning for scheduled review appointments.

In Vitro Investigation Using a New Biomechanical Force-Torque Analysis System: Comparison of Conventional and CAD/CAM-Fixed Orthodontic Retainers

(1) Background: After more than a decade since their first description, Inadvertent Tooth Movements (ITMs) remain an adverse effect of orthodontic retainers without a clear etiology. To further investigate the link between ITMs and the mechanical properties of different retainers, the response upon vertical loading was compared in three retainer types (two stainless steel and one nickel-titanium). The influence of different reference teeth was also considered. (2) Methods: Three retainers (R1, R2, R3) were tested in a newly developed biomechanical analysis system (FRANS). They were bonded to 3D-printed models of the lower anterior jaw and vertically displaced up to 0.3 mm. Developing forces and moments were recorded at the center of force. (3) Results: The vertical displacement caused vertical forces (Fz) and labiolingual moments (My) to arise. These were highest in the lateral incisors (up to 2.35 ± 0.59 N and 9.27 ± 5.86 Nmm for R1; 1.69 ± 1.06 N and 7.42 ± 2.65 Nmm for R2; 3.28 ± 1.73 N and 15.91 ± 9.71 Nmm for R3) for all analyzed retainers and with the R3 retainer for all analyzed reference teeth, while the lowest Fz and My values were recorded with the R1 retainer. (4) Conclusions: Displacements of 0.2 mm and larger provided forces and moments which could be sufficient to cause unwanted torque movements, such as ITMs, in all analyzed retainers. Clinicians must be mindful of these risks and perform post-treatment checkups on patients with retainers of all materials.

Three-dimensional analysis of posttreatment tooth movements despite bonded retainers: part I-upper jaw

PURPOSE

Adverse side effects of fixed retainers in terms of unwanted tooth movements have been described for both the upper and lower jaw, but data about the extent and movement patterns for the maxilla are scarce. The purpose of the present retrospective case-control study was to analyze the amount and direction of unwanted tooth movements despite upper bonded retainers as well as to analyze possible predisposing pretreatment- and treatment-related factors.

METHODS

Plaster casts of 1026 patients who completed orthodontic treatment and a subsequent retention phase of 2 years were screened for unintentional tooth movements. The study group comprised 57 patients with visually obvious tooth movements in the upper jaw, while 57 randomly selected patients without visible tooth movements served as control group. For all patients, plaster casts after debonding of multibracket appliance (T1) and after supervised retention (T2) were digitized, and superimposed digitally using a stable palatal reference area. Thereafter, translational and rotational movements were measured in all three planes of space. Pretreatment- and treatment-related factors of the study and control groups were compared by χ2 test, exact Fisher test, Mann-Whitney U test, and the T‑test for independent samples.

RESULTS

The mean translational movements ranged between 0 and 0.6 mm and the average rotational movements between 0 and 1.3°. Large individual movements up to 2.7 mm translation and 15.9° rotation were seen. A movement pattern around the Y‑ and Z‑axis with an opposite rotational peak at the canines ("upper twist effect") was identified. Compared to the control group, patients of the study group showed a significantly smaller intercanine width pretreatment. Also, study group patients presented a larger intercanine expansion and a slightly larger overjet reduction during treatment, and were more often affected by retainer bonding site detachments and wire fractures, but without reaching statistically significance.

CONCLUSION

Upper bonded retainers show a similar unwanted movement pattern ("twist effect") like the one described for mandibular retainers.

Stability of maxillary anterior teeth during retention and 1 year after removal of retention-an RCT on adolescents retained with two different bonded retainers and a vacuum-formed retainer

BACKGROUND

Maxillary bonded and removable retainers maintain teeth in correct positions following orthodontic treatment. There is insufficient evidence regarding the capacity of the retention methods to stabilize the maxillary teeth both during and after retention.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate retention capacity and 1-year post-retention changes in the irregularity of maxillary anterior teeth and single anterior tooth contact point discrepancy (CPD) of two bonded and one removable retention method.

TRIAL DESIGN

Three-arm parallel group single-centre randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Ninety adolescent patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances were enrolled. After gaining informed consent, the patients were randomized in blocks of 30 by an independent person into one of three groups: A) bonded retainer 13-23; B) bonded retainer 12-22; and C) removable vacuum-formed retainer. The primary outcomes were changes in Little's irregularity index (LII) and single CPD measured on digitalized casts before retention (T1), after 2 years of retention (T2), and 1-year post-retention (T3).

BLINDING

The digital casts were blinded for the outcome assessor.

RESULTS

Data on all 90 patients were analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Changes in LII during retention were 0.3 mm in group A, 0.6 mm in group B, and 1.0 mm in group C. No significant differences between the groups were seen (P > 0.05). Changes during post-retention were 1.1 mm in group A, 0.5 mm in group B, and 0.4 mm in group C. Group A showed more significant changes than groups B and C (P = 0.003). During the whole post-treatment period, no significant differences were shown between the groups (P > 0.05). CPD did not differ significantly between the groups at any point.

HARMS

Three patients showed changes of LII over 3 mm or CPD over 2 mm during the post-retention period, and two accepted to be realigned.

LIMITATIONS

The trial was a single-centre study evaluating 1-year post-retention changes.

CONCLUSIONS

The changes were clinically insignificant during and after the retention period. Thus, all three methods showed equal retention capacity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.com (NCT04616755).

The Effect of Third Molars on the Mandibular Anterior Crowding Relapse-A Systematic Review

The present systematic review updates the evidence on wisdom teeth contributing to lower incisor crowding following orthodontic treatment. Relevant literature was searched on online databases, namely Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to December 2022. Eligibility criteria were formulated using the PICOS approach and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible research included original clinical studies involving patients previously being treated orthodontically with permanent dentition at the end of treatment, regardless of sex or age. The initial search yielded 605 citations. After considering eligibility criteria and removing duplicates, only 10 articles met the criteria for inclusion. The risk of bias of eligible studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Interventions tool. The majority were highly biased, mainly regarding allocation concealment, group similarity, and assessment blinding. The vast majority did not report statistically significant associations between the presence of third molars and crowding relapse. However, a minor effect has been suggested. Seemingly, there is no clear connection between mandibular third molars and incisor crowding after orthodontic treatment. The present review did not find adequate evidence to advocate preventative removal of the third molars for reasons of occlusal stability.

Comparison of 2 different wear protocols of vacuum-formed retainers with respect to the conventional parameters and 3-dimensional superimpositional analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 2 different wear protocols of vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) in terms of angular and linear displacement of teeth using 3-dimensional (3D) superimpositional analysis and conventional model parameters.

METHODS

The study was conducted on 2 groups, each consisting of 17 patients randomly assigned to the part-time group or full-time group of VFR wearing after a nonextraction treatment. While conventional model measurements were assessed on 3D dental casts, 3D tooth movements were evaluated by digitally superimposed scans of casts acquired at 4-time points (debonding and 1, 3, and 6 months after debonding). Regarding conventional parameters, the difference between time-dependent changes among the groups was tested using the nonparametric Brunner-Langer and parametric linear mixed models. Considering 3D measurements, comparisons of groups were made using the Student t tests.

RESULTS

There were no significant intergroup differences regarding conventional model parameters at any time (P >0.05). Significant intergroup differences were observed regarding angular and linear relapses in the labiolingual direction for maxillary and mandibular incisors, as well as the rotational relapses for maxillary left canine and mandibular right lateral incisor, which were greater in the part-time group in the first month and at the end of 6 months (P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional model parameters appear to play a debatable role in evaluating the effectiveness of a retainer wear regimen. Three-dimensional analysis of tooth movements revealed that part-time VFR wear was less effective in retaining labiolingual and rotational tooth movements for the first month after debonding.

Dental changes in humans with untreated normal occlusion throughout lifetime: A systematic scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Understanding age-related changes in normal dental occlusion is crucial for orthodontic treatment, planning, and retention, especially considering the increasing demand from adult patients. This review aimed to systematically perform a scoping literature review regarding age-related dental changes in untreated normal occlusion subjects.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed until May 2020 using the following terms: "Dental Occlusion," "Dentition," "Ageing," and "Age groups." Articles studying changes in dental occlusal traits in orthodontically untreated subjects with neutroclusion and comparing them between various age groups were included. Studies focusing on a single age group or written in languages other than English were excluded. The risk of bias of the studies was assessed with both the methodological index for nonrandomized studies and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of intervention tools.

RESULTS

From the initial 7681 articles, 40 were included. High methodologic heterogeneity was found among studies. Intercanine width was found to increase until 8.0 years and 15.0 years in the mandible and maxilla, respectively, whereas intermolar width increases in both arches until 26.0 years. After that, both parameters decrease into late adulthood. Crowding increases from mixed dentition until 60.0 years of age, especially in the mandible and females. Maxillary incisors procline with age while mandibular incisors retroclined.

CONCLUSIONS

The age-related evolution of occlusal traits, together with skeletal and soft tissue changes, should be considered during orthodontic planning. Well-designed prospective cohort studies are necessary for confirmatory evidence. Expectations for treatment stability should consider muscular balance and inform patients that crowding is a sign of aging that should not always be seen as a failure of orthodontic therapy. Protocol registration number: PROSPERO CRD42020138846.

The rationale for orthodontic retention: piecing together the jigsaw

Retaining teeth in their corrected positions following orthodontic treatment is one of the most challenging aspects of orthodontic practice. Despite much research, the rationale for retention is not entirely clear. Teeth tend to revert to their pre-treatment positions due to periodontal and gingival, soft tissue, occlusal and growth factors. Changes may also follow normal dentofacial ageing and are unpredictable with great variability. In this overview, each of these factors are discussed with their implications for retention, along with adjunctive procedures to minimise relapse. The state of current knowledge, methods used to assess relapse, factors regarded as predictive of or associated with stability as well as overcorrection are outlined. Potential areas requiring further investigation are suggested. The way in which the clinician may manage current retention practice, with a need for individualised retention plans and selective retainer wear, is also considered.

Orthodontic Treatment and Craniocervical Posture in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders: An Observational Study

Orthodontic treatment acts through the application of forces and/or by stimulating and redirecting the functional forces within the craniofacial complex. Considering the interrelationship between craniomandibular and craniocervical systems, this intervention may alter craniocervical posture. Thus, our aim is to (a) compare craniocervical posture, hyoid bone position, and craniofacial morphology before, after, and also in the contention phase at least one year after the orthodontic treatment, in patients with temporomandibular disorders and (b) to verify whether the presence of condylar displacement, the skeletal class, or the facial biotype interferes with the abovementioned outcomes. To do so an observational, analytical, longitudinal, and retrospective design study was carried out. A non-probabilistic convenience sampling method was applied. The sample consisted of clinical records of patients diagnosed with temporomandibular disorders in order to compare pre-orthodontic treatment with post-orthodontic treatment (n = 42) and contention phase data (n = 26). A cephalometric analysis of several variables was performed. The p-value was set as 0.05. When the pre- and post-orthodontic treatment data were analyzed, there were statistically significant changes in variables concerning craniocervical posture (CV angle, C0-C1, and AA-PNS) and also concerning hyoid bone position (C3-Rgn). When pre- and post-orthodontic treatment and contention phase data were analyzed the variables concerning craniocervical posture (C0-C1, CVT/Ver, NSL/OPT, NSL/CVT, NSL/Ver; OPT/CVT, OPT/Ver) and facial biotype had statistically significant changes. This allowed us to conclude that in the sample studied, there were significant differences regarding hyoid bone position (pre- versus post-orthodontic treatment) and craniocervical posture (pre- versus post-orthodontic versus contention), with the craniocervical posture being prone to return to basal values. The presence of condylar displacement was found to significantly increase the H-H1 distance in the three moments of evaluation. Facial biotype was found to significantly increase the NSL/Ver angle on hypodivergent compared to hyperdivergent in the contention phase.

Retention Protocols and Factors Affecting Retainer Choice among Iraqi Orthodontists

Background

To identify the most common retention protocols practiced by Iraqi orthodontists using a specially designed e-survey. Furthermore, this study aimed to assess the effect of sociodemographic factors on the participant's choice.

Methods

Two hundred and twenty-five questionnaires with 23 multiple choice questions were sent to members of the Iraqi Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire was organized into four sections representing information about sociodemographic status of the orthodontists, factors affecting the selection of the retention system, commonly used retainers in the upper arch and lower arch, and duration of the retention system. The chi-square test was used to test the significant association between different variable and sociodemographic factors.

Results

The response rate was 87.5%. The majority of the respondents considered the original malocclusion (80.2%) and clinical experience (49.7%) as the main factors for choosing the retention protocol. In the maxillary arch, a combination of vacuum-formed retainer and fixed retainer (35%) was mostly applied; in the mandibular arch, a fixed retainer was mainly used (46.7%). Most of the respondents recommended initial full-time wearing of a removable appliance (78.2%), especially in the first 3-6 months (47.2%). According to the respondents, bonding a fixed retainer to all anterior teeth was most common (79.7%), fabricated, and adapted directly inside the patient's mouth (75.1%). More than half used flowable composite (54.8%) and recommend leaving the retainer forever (53.8%). Most of the variables showed a statistically significant association between the sociodemographic factors and type, duration, and fabrication of the retainer used.

Conclusions

A combination of removable and fixed retainers was commonly used in orthodontics retention, and sociodemographic factors significantly affected retainer choice.

3D-analysis of unwanted tooth movements despite bonded orthodontic retainers: a pilot study

Background

Recently, reports of unwanted tooth movements despite intact orthodontic bonded retainers have increased. These movements are not subject to relapse but are classified as a new developed malocclusion. The aims of the present pilot study were to analyze the prevalence of unwanted tooth movements despite intact bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers and to identify possible predisposing factors.

Materials and methods

Plaster casts of all patients finishing orthodontic treatment during three consecutive years were assessed before treatment (T0), after multibracket appliance debonding (T1) and after two years of retention (T2). After multibracket appliance treatment, all patients received a cuspid-to-cuspid flexible spiral wire retainer bonded to each tooth of the retained segment in the upper and lower jaw. The study group (SG) consisted of 44 patients (16 male, 28 female) with tooth movements (T1–T2) of the retained segment despite intact bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainer and the control group (CG) of 43 patients (19 male, 24 female) without unwanted tooth movements. The casts of the SG were digitized, superimposed and measured. Using the Chi-square test, Fisher´s exact test and Mann–Whitney-U-test (p < 0.05), mandibular plane angle, incisor proclination, oral dysfunctions or habits (T0) and intercanine distance, overjet and interincisal relationship (T0, T1, T2) were compared between SG and CG.

Results

The prevalence of patients with unwanted tooth movements in one or both jaws was 27.0%. Maxillary retainers were affected more often (20.9%) than mandibular retainers (14.1%). The median amount of tooth movements was 0 to 0.66 mm with large interindividual variations. Oral dysfunctions or habits at T0, such as a lack of interincisal contact at all time points, were associated with unwanted tooth movements.

Conclusion

Unwanted tooth movements occurred more often with maxillary than mandibular retainers. Patients with oral dysfunctions/habits and without interincisal contact had a higher prevalence of unwanted tooth movements.

Stability of Class II corrections with removable and fixed functional appliances: A literature review

BACKGROUND

Class II functional appliances have been used in orthodontics for over 100 years. Although the stability of corrections is one of the main goals of orthodontic treatment, there is a paucity of longitudinal studies on the long-term stability of treatment of Class II malocclusion based on functional appliances.

METHODS

This narrative review attempts to summarize the limited related evidence available and discusses the clinical implications of important aspects related to occlusal and skeletal changes that arise after Class II malocclusion treatment with functional appliances.

RESULTS

The occlusal changes obtained through Class II functional treatment do mostly exhibit long-term stability. While mild posttreatment changes occurred, they were most likely due to physiologic aging processes and not likely associated with actual treatment relapse. Long-term retention in the lower jaw would be particularly beneficial. A stable occlusion with good intercuspation in the posterior arches seems more likely to preserve a Class I occlusion after treatment through dentoalveolar compensatory mechanisms. After treatment, the maxilla and the mandible do grow anteriorly, with the mandible growing more than the maxilla. Patients treated with functional appliances are not likely to develop TMJ disorders over the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

Long term skeletal corrections achieved with functional appliances seem to be overall stable. Class II molar and overjet relapses can be likely explained by a combination of tooth movement and an unfavorable posttreatment maxillomandibular growth pattern, especially when combined with unstable interdigitation of the posterior teeth. No specific intermaxillary retention approach has been assessed yet.

Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention

OBJECTIVES

To develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for orthodontic retention (OR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CPG was developed according to the AGREE II instrument and EBRO (Dutch methodology for evidence-based guideline development). Reporting was done according the RIGHT statement. A Task Force developed clinical questions regarding OR. To answer these questions, a systematic literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was performed. Two independent researchers identified and selected studies, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB tool and rated quality of evidence using GRADE. The Task Force formulated considerations and recommendations after discussing the evidence. The concept CPG was sent for commentary to all relevant stakeholders.

RESULT

One systematic review-with 15 studies-met the inclusion criteria. In case of low evidence and lack of outcome measures, expert-based considerations were developed. Over four meetings, the Task Force reached consensus on considerations and recommendations, after which the concept CPG was ready for the commentary phase. After processing the comments, the CPG was presented to the Dutch Association of Orthodontists, whereafter authorization followed.

LIMITATIONS

The paucity of evidence-based studies concerning OR and the reporting of measurable patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This CPG offers practitioner recommendations for best practice regarding OR, may reduce variation between practices and assists with patient aftercare. A carefully chosen retention procedure for individual patients, combined with clear information and communication between orthodontist, dentist and patient will contribute to long-term maintenance of orthodontic treatment results.

Responsibilities and Retention

As our understanding of orthodontic relapse has improved, there is an increasing move toward long-term retention. Safely reducing relapse using appropriate long-term retention imposes considerable responsibilities on the orthodontist, the patient, and the patient’s general dentist. This article will describe these responsibilities.