Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) versus dead-soft coaxial bonded retainers: a randomized clinical trial. Part 1. Stability, retainer failure, and participant satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) was introduced in dentistry as an alternative to metal alloys.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of PEEK-fixed retainers in preserving the stability of mandibular anterior and participant satisfaction as compared to the Dead-soft coaxial fixed retainer (DSC).

TRIAL DESIGN

A single-centre, two-arm parallel groups randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

The patients treated with pre-adjusted orthodontic appliances who have a Little's Irregularity Index (LII) ≤ 0.5 mm have been enrolled in the trial. PEEK retainers were prepared to round 0.8 mm wire by computer-aided design and manufacturing, and the DSC wire was carefully adapted to the lingual surface of the lower anterior teeth. The primary outcome was the stability of lower anterior teeth as assessed by LII, while the secondary outcomes were changes in occlusal parameters, retainer failure, and patient satisfaction. The data were collected at the debonding stage (T0), 1 month (T1), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T6) after starting the trial, except for patient's satisfaction, which was recorded using an electronic form at T1 and T6.

BLINDING

Single blinding of participants.

RESULTS

A total of 46 participants with an age range of 12-28 years old were randomly allocated to the two groups (n = 23 in each). Only one participant dropped out; therefore, 45 participants were analysed. The DSC group showed a significant increase in LII at T3. Both retainer groups had comparable occlusal measurements, failure frequency, and survival time, with no significant difference. The patients in the DSC group reported a statistically significant perception of change in the position of their teeth compared to those in the PEEK group.

HARMS

No harmful effects have been reported.

LIMITATIONS

Limited follow-up duration and the inability to blind the operator due to the nature of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

After 6-month retention, the PEEK retainer was equally effective to DSC retainers in maintaining the teeth alignment, with no significant differences regarding the failure frequency, survival rate, and general patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://register.clinicaltrials.gov. (NCT05557136).

Can vacuum-formed retainers maintain arch dimensions and alignment compared to Hawley and fixed bonded retainers after treatment with fixed appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different types of retention appliances have been proposed over the years, but their effectiveness in maintaining arch dimensions and alignment after orthodontic treatment is still unclear.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) in preserving arch widths, arch length, and anterior alignment in maxillary and mandibular arches, compared to removable Hawley retainers (HRs) or fixed bonded retainers (FBRs). Search methods: unrestricted literature search of five major databases up to March 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

randomized/non-randomized clinical studies comparing VFRs to removable HRs or FBRs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

after duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, random effects meta-analyses of standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were performed, followed by meta-regressions, sensitivity analyses, and assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.

RESULTS

Twenty-two prospective studies (4 non-randomized and 18 randomized controlled trials) involving 1797 patients (mean age 17.01 years, 38.3% males) were included. No significant differences were found in the intercanine width, intermolar width, and arch length between VFRs and HRs, in both arches (P > 0.05). However, VFRs were statistically more effective than HRs in terms of Little's irregularity scores (LII) in the maxilla (eight studies; SMD = -0.42; 95% CI: -1.03 to -0.09; P = 0.02; I2 = 73.4%) but not in the mandible (P = 0.12). No significant differences were reported for all considered outcomes between VFRs and FBRs in in both arches (P > 0.05), except for lower LII, where VFRs were significantly less efficient (eight studies; SMD = 1.49; 95% CI = 0.26-2.7; P = 0.02; I2 = 93%). Follow-up times, risk of bias, and wire type (of FBRs) did not show statistically significant effects on outcome variables. Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the findings for including non-randomized and postretention studies. The certainty in these estimates was from moderate to low due to the risk of bias and inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

Low to moderate quality evidence indicates that VFRs are as effective as HRs in maintaining arch widths, length, and alignment. Low-quality evidence found similar efficacy between VFRs and FBRs, with FBRs being statistically more effective at maintaining lower arch alignment, but the difference was not clinically significant.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration (CRD42024518433).

What are the prevalence and risk factors associated with wire syndrome in dental students? A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Wire syndrome (WS) refers to dental displacements that can be described as aberrant, inaccurate, unexplained, or excessive, on teeth still contained by an intact bonded retainer, without detachment or fracture, leading to evolving dental and periodontal, aesthetic and/or functional consequences. The objective of this study was to define the prevalence rate of mandibular WS and the associated risk factors.

METHODS

Participants were dental students who had undergone orthodontic treatment and were wearing an intact fixed mandibular retainer. They completed a 20-item questionnaire, after which an extraoral and intraoral clinical examination was conducted. Participants were assigned to either the non-wire syndrome group or the wire syndrome group by two independent practitioners. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to investigate potential risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 59 students (23.4years±1.7years) were included. Among these, 9 students presented with mandibular WS, resulting in a prevalence rate of 15.25% (95% CI: 6.08%-24.43%). Univariate analysis revealed a significant association between a deep labio-mental fold, a concave profile, and a multi-strand round wire, and an excess risk of WS. The odds ratios were 16.5 (95% CI: 1.9-146.8, P=0.01), 6.4 (95% CI: 1.0-41.0, P=0.05), and 9.0 (95% CI: 1.7-48.7, P=0.01), respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed these significant associations, except for the concave profile.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence rate of wire syndrome was 15.25%. Two risk factors associated with WS were identified: a deep labio-mental fold and a multi-strand round wire retainer.

Gingival health and relapse tendency: a split mouth randomized controlled trial of two positions of lower fixed retainers

OBJECTIVE

To compare between lower permanent retainers placed in the middle of the incisal third and retainers placed in the middle of lower incisors in terms of gingival condition, lower incisors stability and retainers' failure rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a split-mouth clinical trial. Fifty patients finished fixed orthodontic treatment and required fixed permanent retainer in the lower arch were recruited. A multistranded (0.0215 inch) retainer, with a vertical step in the midline placing half of the retainer in the incisal third and the other half in the middle of the lower incisors was attached to all the teeth in the lower labial segment. After one year, all the subjects were recalled. The primary outcome was to evaluate the plaque index (PI) and the gingival index (GI) of the lower labial segment teeth. The secondary outcome was to assess retainers' failure rate and the relapse in lower labial segment alignment.

RESULTS

The GI and the PI scores were significantly smaller on the side where the retainer was placed incisally (P = 0.004, P < 0.001, respectively). There was no statistical difference in the average Irregularity Index (IRI) and the retainer's failure rate between the two sides (P = 0.52, P = 0.76, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Placing lower fixed retainers in the incisal third will improve the lower labial segment oral hygiene and gingival health in the lingual area without affecting the efficiency or the integrity of the retainers. This trial was not registered Null Hypothesis: Placing the lower permanent retainer in the middle of the lingual surfaces of the lower labial segment' teeth or in the incisal third will not affect the gingival health of the lower incisors.

Retention efficacy and patient experience with customized clear retainer and wrap-around circumferential retainer among non-extraction orthodontic patients: A 12-month follow-up cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate retention efficacy by assessing retention stability and patient perspectives according to type of circumferential retainer: the wrap-around circumferential retainer (WCR) and customized clear retainer (CCR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort follow-up study involved 52 patients aged 18-62 who underwent fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment without extractions or orthognathic surgery. Following screening consenting participants were divided into WCR and CCR groups. All participants before follow-up received fixed retainers for the upper and lower anteriors and respective removable retainers within 2 weeks post-debond. Intraoral scans and lateral cephalograms were taken immediately after debonding (T0) and again 12 months later. Dentoalveolar changes in several measurements were compared to evaluate retention efficacy. Surveys were conducted at 1 month (T1) and 12 months (T2) post-debonding to assess changes in patient experiences. Outcome assessments were blinded. Paired T-tests and independent T-tests were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of dentoalveolar measurements, respectively. Survey responses were analysed using the Pearson Chi-Square test.

RESULTS

The final assessment included 32 participants. Model analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups, except for maxillary intermolar width (p = .033). In the WCR group, the cephalometric analysis indicated a significant increase in the incisor mandibular plane angle (p = .002) and a decrease in the interincisal angle (p = .014), while changes in the CCR group were statistically non-significant. Patient attitude evaluation showed similar trends for wear time and overall satisfaction. However, a higher percentage of respondents in the WCR group reported irritation when wearing the retainers (p = .037) at T1 and discomfort related to speech (p = .038) at T2.

CONCLUSIONS

CCR showed better retention efficacy in terms of lower incisor inclination. Patients experienced relatively less irritation and speech discomfort with CCRs.

Post-treatment stability, survival time and periodontal health associated with vacuum-formed, bonded and rapid prototype retainers: A prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

New technologies have paved the way for newer fabrication techniques, such as rapid prototyping, which has gained popularity in the fabrication of several orthodontic appliances including retainers.

AIM

To evaluate the stability, survival time and periodontal health associated with vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs), bonded retainers (BRs) and rapid prototype retainers (RPRs) over a period of 12 months in retention.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective clinical study.

METHODS

A total of 72 participants completing fixed orthodontic treatment were allocated to the following three groups by the investigators based upon their initial malocclusion, compliant and preferences: VFR; BR; and RPR. The primary outcome was Little's Irregularity Index (LII). Other stability parameters, including arch length (AL), inter-canine width (ICW) and inter-molar width (IMW), were also assessed immediately after debonding (T0) and 12 months (T2) after debonding. In addition, survival time, and calculus index and gingival index (GI) were assessed.

RESULTS

LII showed a significant difference (P = 0.00) between the groups and was increased in the VFR group (0.18 ± 0.22 mm) compared to the BR (0.03 ± 0.05 mm) and RPR (0.01 ± 0.03 mm) groups but was not clinically significant. The mean survival time of maxillary retainers was longest for the RPR group (220.63 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 194.1-247.16) but there was no significant difference between the three groups (P = 0.43). The mean survival time of mandibular retainers was higher and the same for the VFR and RPR groups (240 days; 95% CI = 240-240) and there was no significant difference between the three groups (P = 0.38). The calculus index score (P = 0.00) was statistically significant between the groups, with an increased score for the BR group (0.33 ± 0.27) compared to the VFR (0.07 ± 0.16) and RPR (0.13 ± 0.22) groups. Similarly, the GI score (P = 0.02) was statistically significant between the groups and was increased in the BR group (0.01 ± 0.19) compared to the VFR (-0.15 ± 0.18) and RPR (-0.06 ± 0.15) groups. The increase in calculus index and GI scores for the BR group were not clinically significant.

CONCLUSION

There were no clinically significant differences between the three retainer groups in terms of stability, periodontal health and time to failure.

Treatment stability with bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers after 12 months: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of V-bend bonded retainers (BR) versus vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) regarding their capacity to maintain treatment stability and survival rates after 12 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients finishing orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated into two groups. The BR group received maxillary and mandibular BRs in the lingual surfaces of the anterior teeth. The VFR group received VFRs right after fixed appliances removal. The patients were evaluated at four time-points: at fixed appliances removal (T0), after 3 (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3). In each time-point digital models were obtained and analysed with the OrthoAnalyzer™ software. Treatment stability based on occlusal outcomes and retainers' survival rates were evaluated. Intergroup comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U-tests. The Kaplan-Meier survival plot and the log-rank test were employed to assess the retainers' survival.

RESULTS

Both BR and VFR groups included 25 patients. The groups were comparable regarding their baseline characteristics. Up to 6 months, both retainers were equally effective; however, after 12 months, BRs were more effective in maintaining the incisors' alignment in the maxilla and the mandible compared to the VFRs. No differences were noticed in the intercanine and intermolar widths, overjet and overbite. There were no differences regarding the retainers' survivability in both arches.

CONCLUSIONS

BRs were more effective in maintaining the alignment of the incisors in the maxilla and mandible compared to VFRs after 12 months. Both retainers presented the same survival rates after the same period.

Keeping the teeth in line: Exploring the necessity of bonded retainers in orthodontics: A narrative review

In most recent studies, long-term retention after orthodontic treatment has been hypothesized that may be necessary to maintain the stability of the dentition and avoid post-treatment changes. The bonded fixed retainer is characterized by its clinical effectiveness, patient acceptance, and lack of patient complaints as compared with a removable retainer. An electronic database (such as PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ResearchGate) has been collected using specific keywords. Of the 152 articles, only randomized clinical trials that investigated different types of fixed retainers or compared fixed with removable retainers were illustrated in tables and included in this review. The present review has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of the bonded fixed retainer, types, material, bonding methods, and how to improve its the success rate, besides the importance of new technology in fixed orthodontic retention.

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.

Orthodontic retention: Rationale and periodontal implications

Post-treatment change in the form of true relapse and physiological and maturational effects is common following orthodontics. The unpredictable nature of these manifestations dictates a conservative, near-universal approach to retention. Both fixed and removable forms of retention are popular with the latter constrained by variable levels of adherence particularly in the medium- to long-term. Fixed retention may offer a more predictable means of preservation of orthodontic outcomes; however, this advantage is offset by the requirement for prolonged supervision and the potential for adverse changes including periodontal breakdown. Nevertheless, while examples of severe complications are common, a clear causal relationship between intact, passive retainers and periodontal issues does not appear to exist. Nevertheless, the importance of diligent maintenance and careful supervision during fixed retention, in particular, cannot be disregarded.

Orthodontic camouflage treatment for a patient with bilateral cleft lip and palate, bilateral crossbite, and microdontic maxillary lateral incisors

Cleft lip and palate is a congenital craniofacial anomaly that affects the lip and oral cavity. The management and orthodontic treatment of this anomaly is important but challenging. This article reports the successful treatment of a patient with bilateral cleft lip and palate, Class III malocclusion, bilateral crossbite, crowding and microdontic maxillary lateral incisors. One mandible incisor was extracted, and three miniscrew anchorages were utilized to distalize the maxillary left dental arch and retract the mandibular arch. After treatment, ideal occlusion and a better profile were established, and long-term stability was confirmed by a 4-year follow-up. This article represents a successful attempt of orthodontic camouflage treatment of severe dentofacial discrepancy, as an important part of the series treatment of cleft lip and palate, to provide some insight into the clinical field.

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).

Effects of three orthodontic retainers on periodontal pathogens and periodontal parameters

The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the changes in periodontal pathogens and periodontal status within 6 months of wearing three orthodontic retainers, namely, vacuum-formed retainer (VFR), Hawley retainer (HR), and lingual fixed retainer (LR). In total, 48 patients who underwent orthodontic treatment with ordinary metal brackets were divided into VFR, HR, and LR groups (n = 16 per group). Saliva samples were collected at the time of debonding (T0) and after 1 month (T1), 3 months (T2), and 6 months (T3). Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa) were quantitatively analyzed using real-time PCR. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PLI), and probing depth (PD) were measured at the four time points to evaluate changes in periodontal state. SPSS20.0 software was used to analyze the data, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300073704), the registration was retrospective. Compared to baseline (T0) values, Pg, Aa, GI, PLI, and PD were significantly decreased in all three groups 1 month after wearing the retainer (p < 0.05). Significant differences were observed in Aa at T3 among the three groups, whereby the HR group exhibited significantly better results compared to the VFR and LR groups (p < 0.05). Differences were found among the three groups' Porphyromonas gingivalis at T3, and the HR group was significantly better than the VFR and LR groups (P < 0.05). From T1 to T2, GI, PLI, and PD of the three groups tended to be stable, however differences were observed at T3, with the PLI and PD of the HR group being the lowest among the three groups (p < 0.05). Regardless of the type of retainer used, the periodontal condition of patients was significantly improved after removal of the metal brackets. After 6 months of retainer use, the Hawley retainer was superior to vacuum-formed retainer and lingual fixed retainer with regard to Pg, Aa, and periodontal clinical parameters.

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.

"Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg's retainer": a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Recently, Vacuum formed retainers (VFRs) are preferred as an Orthodontic retention appliance over conventional Begg's retainers. Very few studies have been conducted between VFRs and Begg's retainers. Hence, this study aims at assessing the effectiveness, oral hygiene and acceptability between VFRs and Begg's retainers with a follow up period of 1 year.

METHODS

Eighty patients who completed fixed Orthodontic treatment were included. Retainers were delivered on the same day of debonding. Retainer 1/ R1 stands for VFRs and Retainer 2/ R2 stands for Begg's retainers. The retainers were randomly allocated to both the arches. 40 VFRs and Begg's retainers in maxillary and mandibular arch were given respectively. Effectiveness, oral hygiene condition were performed at T₀ (After debonding), T₁ (3 months after using retainers), T₂ (6 months after using retainers), T₃ (9 months after using retainers), T₄ (12 months after using retainers) follow up stages, except the feedback form and the breakage of retainers that were filled at T₄ stage.

RESULTS

Both R₁ and R₂ retainers showed improvement in teeth alignment in both the arches at follow up stages. Interproximal contacts in maxillary and mandibular arch with VFRs and Begg's retainers improved to 77.5% and 82.5% respectively. Considering the marginal ridge, Begg's retainers and VFRs showed 95%, 55% increased proportion at T₄ respectively (p < 0.05). Patients wearing Beggs's retainers had significantly better (p < 0.05) oral hygiene status. Significant differences were observed with Begg's retainers in teeth biting, whereas no significant difference was found with fitting of appliance (p = 0.180) and gingival irritation (p = 1.000). VFRs were well accepted aesthetically that was significant. Retainers were prone to breakage but was not significant (p = 0.162).

CONCLUSION

Begg's wrap around retainers maintain good oral hygiene, improve the teeth alignment, interproximal contact and marginal ridges post Orthodontic treatment with better fitting of the appliance. VFRs are also preferred as they are good in maintaining proper teeth alignment with progressive improvement in the interproximal contacts and are aesthetically pleasing.

Tooth loss as a result of a bonded retainer: a case report

To reduce the risk of unwanted post-treatment changes following orthodontic treatment, use of bonded retainers is gaining popularity. Despite their efficacy and popularity with patients, it has been widely reported that there are significant risks with bonded retainers if they are not maintained and monitored. This case report demonstrates how unwanted tooth movement caused by a bonded retainer can lead to catastrophic failure and ultimately, tooth loss. The importance of active and regular monitoring of bonded retainers is highlighted and recommendations are made to the wider dental community on how to monitor such retainers in clinical practice.

Orthodontic treatment with miniscrew anchorage: Analysis of quality of information on YouTube

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of the quality of information (QOI) and clarity of information (COI) among oral health-related videos on the video-streaming Web site YouTube is scarce. This study evaluated QOI and COI regarding temporary anchorage devices contained within videos uploaded by dental professionals (DPs) on YouTube.

METHODS

YouTube videos were systematically acquired with 4 search terms. The top 50 videos per search term by the number of views were stored in a YouTube account. A set of inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, videos were assessed for viewing characteristics, a 4-point scoring system (0-3) was applied to evaluate QOI in 10 predetermined domains, and a 3-point scoring system (0-2) was applied to evaluate COI. Descriptive statistical analyses and intrarater and interrater reliability tests were performed.

RESULTS

Strong intrarater and interrater reliability scores were observed. Sixty-three videos from the top 58 most-viewed DPs were viewed 1,395,471 times (range, 414-124,939). Most DPs originated from the United States (20%), and orthodontists (62%) uploaded most of the videos. The mean number of reported domains was 2.03 ± 2.40 (out of 10). The mean overall QOI score per domain was 0.36 ± 0.79 (out of 3). The "Placement of miniscrews" domain scored highest (1.23 ± 0.75). The "Cost of miniscrews placement" domain scored the lowest (0.03 ± 0.25). The mean overall QOI score per DP was 3.59 ± 5.64 (out of 30). The COI in 32 videos was immeasurable, and only 2 avoided using technical words.

CONCLUSIONS

The QOI related to temporary anchorage devices contained within videos provided by DPs through the YouTube Web site is deficient, particularly in the cost of placement. Orthodontists should be aware of the importance of YouTube as an information resource and ensure that videos related to temporary anchorage devices contain comprehensive and evidence-based information.

Fixed and removable orthodontic retainers, effects on periodontal health compared: A systematic review

The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the properties of the different types of orthodontic retainers, identify their differences and define which type of device is most effective and less harmful to periodontal health.

Methods

A literature search was carried out by a reviewer by consulting PubMed, Lilacs, Embase, Medline full text, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Science Direct electronic databases for biomedical and health literature as well as the grey literature and setting up the search from December 2010 without any restriction about articles languages.

Results

The results showed that patients who wear retainers for a long period have significant differences in clinical parameters compared to patients without retainers. The type of retainer chosen also significantly influences the overall periodontal health of patients. Fixed retainers, both glass-fibre reinforced and steel wire retainers, proved to be the retainer type with the highest plaque and calculus accumulation values compared to removable retainers. In addition, among fixed retainers, glass-fibre reinforced retainers proved to be those that mostly promote the plaque and calculus accumulation in the application site.

Conclusion

Fixed retainers are the best devices to maintain the alignment of mandibular anterior teeth in the long term. Among these devices, stainless steel lingual retainers, plain or braided, should remain the first choice. Although they are also susceptible to periodontal complications, their effect on periodontal health can be considered statistically insignificant if compared to glass-fibre reinforced retainers which, showing worse periodontal complications, should not be used.

CAD/CAM nitinol bonded retainer versus a chairside rectangular-chain bonded retainer: A multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bonded retainers are widely used to maintain the positions of anterior teeth after orthodontic treatment. Various types of bonded retainer exist however, there is a lack of evidence to indicate which type is superior.

AIM

To compare upper and lower CAD/CAM nitinol bonded retainers (Memotain®) with upper and lower chairside rectangular-chain bonded retainers (Ortho-FlexTech™), in terms of stability, retainer failures and patient satisfaction.

TRIAL DESIGN

Multi-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial with 1:1 allocation.

SETTING

Three trial centres: University Teaching Hospital; District General Hospital; and Specialist Orthodontic Practice. All treatment was provided free as part of a state-funded healthcare system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 68 patients were randomly allocated to receive either upper and lower Memotain® bonded retainers or upper and lower Ortho-FlexTech™ bonded retainers. Ten trained operators placed and reviewed the bonded retainers. Measurements were carried out on study models taken at debond and after six months. Patient satisfaction questionnaires were completed at six months following debond.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated due to the high number of failures (50%) of the upper Memotain® retainers within six months. Memotain® retainers were three times more likely to fail (unadjusted hazard ratio = 2.82, 95% confidence interval = 1.00-7.99) than Ortho-FlexTech™ retainers at six months in the upper arch. Patients were satisfied with both types of retainer.

LIMITATIONS

Early termination of the trial means that the a priori sample size was not reached, so outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

The trial was terminated early due to the high failure rate of upper Memotain® bonded retainers. They had a higher risk of failure in the maxillary arch when compared to upper Ortho-FlexTech™ bonded retainers after six months.

Stability, survival, and patient satisfaction with CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 6-month follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this two-arm parallel two-centre randomized controlled trial was to compare computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers (FRs) in terms of stability over 6 months. Secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. Retainers were bonded at the end of orthodontic treatment (T0), and patients were recalled after 1 (T1), 3 (T3), and 6 (T6) 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.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): Ninety in the CAD/CAM group and 91 in the conventional group. Three subjects dropped out at baseline, as they did not attend any of the follow-up appointments.168 patients attended the T6 visit. There were no significant differences in arch dimensions between T0 and T6, whilst the LII was different only in the CAD/CAM group (mean difference: 0.2 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.1 to 0.4; P < 0.001). Within 6 months, 39 upper retainers (19 out of 88 CAD/CAM and 20 out of 90 conventional retainers) and 52 lower retainers failed (26 out of 88 CAD/CAM and 26 out of 90 conventional retainers), with no significant difference between the survival of both types of retainers (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: upper arch: 0.99 [P =0.99], lower arch: 0.93 [P = 0.80]). There were no significant changes in patient satisfaction between the groups. No harms were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional retainers after 6 months. There was no difference in failures and in patient satisfaction between both types of FRs.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.

Survival of conventionally bonded mandibular retainers with or without enamel sandblasting in orthodontic patients over a 12-month period. A single-centre, split-mouth randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this trial was to assess the effect of enamel sandblasting in addition to the acid-etch technique in reducing first-time failures of fixed mandibular retainers placed over a 12-month period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical approval was obtained. Participants were recruited in a single private practice. The primary outcome of this study was any first-time failure of the mandibular fixed retainer assessed at three timepoints over a 12-month period. Three consecutive teeth either on the left or right side (from lower canine-lower central incisor) were randomly allocated to the intervention (sandblasting) and the control (non-sandblasted). Randomization was performed using a centralized randomization service. The patients were randomized in blocks of four and eight with allocation concealment secured by contacting the sequence generator for group assignment. Blinding of either the patient or clinicians was not possible at time of placement of the mandibular retainer.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-seven participants were randomized to receive enamel sandblasting (intervention) and non-sandblasting (control) in the region of the six anterior mandibular teeth in a split-mouth fashion. Participants were recruited between December 2018 to October 2020. The data for all participants were analysed resulting in 394 observations. Overall, the risk of first-time failure was 11.4%. No difference in first-time failures was observed between the intervention (sandblasting) and control (non-sandblasting) groups [hazard ratio (HR), 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.59, 1.88, P = 0.88]. Males had a higher instant probability of first-time failures (HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.65-6.14; P < 0.01). Participants with a fair level of co-operation had a lower instant probability of first-time failures (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.86; P = 0.02). There were no harms reported to either the participant or their dentition.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in the first-time failures of mandibular bonded retainers placed with conventional etch-bond technique with or without enamel sandblasting was observed. The overall risk of first-time failure was 11.4%.

REGISTRATION

This trial was not registered prior to trial commencement.

Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review

The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may vary in duration. This review aims to present and comment on the available means of retention. The ever-popular, passive Hawley-like removable appliances are credible in maintaining the desired occlusion. Modifications are the removable appliance Wrap Around, having the labial archwire extending to the premolars; the translucent retainer, Astics, a unique aesthetic Hawley-type device; and the reinforced removable retainer, which features a metallic grid reinforcing the acrylic base. Vacuum-formed retainers are easy to fabricate and are readily prescribed. By contrast, fixed retainers are made of orthodontic wire and composite resin bonded on the lingual or palatal surfaces of the anterior teeth. Patient-related variables need evaluation to select the appropriate retainer, while patients ought to realize the importance of retention and comply with offered guidance. Overall, the orthodontist is responsible for keeping the patient informed on the properties and the duration of retention, even before starting active orthodontic treatment.

Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review

The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may vary in duration. This review aims to present and comment on the available means of retention. The ever-popular, passive Hawley-like removable appliances are credible in maintaining the desired occlusion. Modifications are the removable appliance Wrap Around, having the labial archwire extending to the premolars; the translucent retainer, Astics, a unique aesthetic Hawley-type device; and the reinforced removable retainer, which features a metallic grid reinforcing the acrylic base. Vacuum-formed retainers are easy to fabricate and are readily prescribed. By contrast, fixed retainers are made of orthodontic wire and composite resin bonded on the lingual or palatal surfaces of the anterior teeth. Patient-related variables need evaluation to select the appropriate retainer, while patients ought to realize the importance of retention and comply with offered guidance. Overall, the orthodontist is responsible for keeping the patient informed on the properties and the duration of retention, even before starting active orthodontic treatment.

Young people's experiences of orthodontic retainers: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate young people's experiences of retainers, the associated impact of retainers on their lives and their perceptions of what influences their own co-operation.

DESIGN

Qualitative, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

An orthodontic department in a UK dental hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sampling was used to recruit young people, aged 11-17 years, wearing a range of different types of retainers.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed. The resultant data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Ten patients were recruited before thematic saturation was achieved. Four themes were identified: impact and experiences of wearing retainers; facilitators and barriers to retainer adherence; finding out about retainers; and, finally, involvement in decisions about retainers. Although some initial negative impacts were described, participants generally adapted quickly to retainers. Several factors were perceived to influence co-operation with removable retainers, including concerns about relapse and the associated waste of personal effort and wider resources. There were perceived deficiencies in the information provided by clinicians, which led participants to seek advice from other sources, including social media. Some young people wanted to be more involved in decisions about their retainers.

CONCLUSION

While patients perceived retainers to be easier to wear than active appliances, some transient negative impacts occurred, largely related to initial periods of full-time wear. There were a range of factors which patients perceived to influence their adherence with removable retainers.

Post-treatment stability after 5 years of retention with vacuum-formed and bonded retainers-a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Retention after orthodontic treatment is still a challenge and more evidence about post-treatment stability and patients' perceptions of different retention strategies is needed.

OBJECTIVES

This trial compares removable vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) with bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers (CTC) after 5 years of retention.

TRIAL DESIGN

A single centre two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This trial included 104 adolescent patients, randomized into two groups (computer-generated), using sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes. All patients were treated with fixed appliances in both jaws with and without tooth extractions. Patients in the intervention group received a VFR in the mandible (n = 52), and patients in the active comparator group received a CTC (n = 52). Both groups had a VFR in the maxilla. Dental casts at debond (T1), after 6 months (T2), after 18 months (T3), and after 5 years (T4) were digitized and analysed regarding Little's Irregularity Index (LII), overbite, overjet, arch length, and intercanine and intermolar width. The patients completed questionnaires at T1, T2, T3, and T4.

RESULTS

Post-treatment changes between T1 and T4 in both jaws were overall small. In the maxilla, LII increased significantly (median difference: 0.3 mm), equally in both groups. In the mandible, LII increased significantly in the group VFR/VFR (median difference: 0.6 mm) compared to group VFR/CTC (median difference: 0.1 mm). In both groups, overjet was stable, overbite increased, and arch lengths decreased continuously. Intercanine widths and intermolar width in the mandible remained stable, but intermolar width in the maxilla decreased significantly. No differences were found between groups. Regardless of retention strategy, patients were very satisfied with the treatment outcome and their retention appliances after 5 years.

LIMITATIONS

It was not possible to perform blinded assessments of digital models at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-treatment changes in both jaws were small. Anterior alignment in the mandible was more stable with a bonded CTC retainer compared to a removable VFR after 5 years of retention. Patients were equally satisfied with fixed and removable retention appliances.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03070444).

Post-treatment Stability in Orthodontic Retention with Twistflex Retainers-Do Patients Benefit from Additional Removable Retainers?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate post-treatment movements of lower anterior teeth during orthodontic retention in patients with fixed twistflex retainers versus those with combined fixed and removable retainers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was based on a retrospective data analysis of 57 adult patients during orthodontic retention. They were assigned to two groups: In group 1 (n = 30) the lower jaw was provided with twistflex retainers only and in group 2 (n = 27) with a twistflex combined with a removable retainer for night-time use. Orthodontic study models of the lower jaw were digitalized and superimposed. Tooth movements were analyzed at the retainer bonding (t0) and follow-up appointment ≥ six months later (t1). Rotational tooth movements (°) were measured around the x-axis (mesial/distal direction), the y-axis (buccal/lingual direction) and the z-axis (longitudinal direction, tooth axis). Translational tooth movements (mm) were registered along the x-axis (buccal/lingual direction), the y-axis (mesial/distal direction) and the z-axis (apical/coronal direction).

RESULTS

Canine and incisor position changes during orthodontic retention were more pronounced in group 1 compared to group 2 except for canine rotations around the z-axis. In both groups in most of the cases stable lower incisor alignment could be found, but the proportion was significant higher in group 2 (group 1: 56.7% vs. group 2: 81.5%). Severe misalignment was present in 13.3% of the participants of group 1 and only in 7.4% of group 2. The extent of canine tipping and movements along the x- and y-axis in severe misalignment cases was significantly lower in group 2 compared to 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower incisor alignment was more stable in patients with combined fixed and removable retainers compared to fixed retainers only.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Based on the present findings, the routinely application of supplementary removable retainers can be recommended to enhance anterior tooth alignment in patients with fixed twistflex retainers.

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

INTRODUCTION

This 2-arm parallel trial aimed to assess the number of failures of mandibular fixed retainers bonded with direct and indirect bonding methods at a 5-year follow-up and investigate the stability of intercanine and interpremolar distances.

METHODS

Consecutive patients from the clinic of the University of Geneva (Switzerland) were randomly allocated to either direct or indirect bonding of a mandibular fixed retainer at the end of orthodontic treatment. Inclusion criteria included the presence of all mandibular incisors and canines; and the absence of active caries, restorations, fractures, or periodontal disease of these teeth. The patients were randomized in blocks of 4 using an online randomization service, with allocation concealment secured by contacting the sequence generator for assignment. Two and 5 years (T5) after bonding the retainers, the patients were recalled, and impressions were taken. The primary outcome was the 5-year survival of the mandibular fixed retainer bonded with both bonding methods. The secondary outcomes were the intercanine and interpremolar distances and the assessment of unexpected posttreatment changes (ie, changes in torque and/or rotations of the mandibular incisors and canines). Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, and a Cox proportional hazard regression model was fitted for bonding type, age, and treatment. Linear mixed models were fitted to intercanine and interpremolar distances: bonding type, time, age, and treatment were modeled as outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. At T5, 6 patients without previous failure were lost to follow-up from each group. At T5, the fixed retainer was debonded in 14 patients (54%) for each group. The hazard ratio of indirect bonding to direct bonding was 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-4.60; P = 0.91); there was no statistically significant difference in survival between the groups. Regarding intercanine and interpremolar distances, none of the tested prognostic factors reached statistical significance. Unexpected posttreatment changes were observed in 6 failure-free patients, all bonded with the direct bonding method. Only 1 patient required debonding of the fixed retainer. No other serious harms were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-year survival rate for both direct and indirect bonding methods was 46%, without a statistically significant difference between bonding methods. Bonded retainers were effective in maintaining intercanine and interpremolar distances. Unexpected posttreatment changes were only observed with retainers bonded with the direct bonding method.

REGISTRATION

The trial was not registered.

PROTOCOL

The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

FUNDING

No funding or conflict of interest to be declared.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Oral Hygiene, Periodontal Health, and Treatment Satisfaction of Orthodontic Retention Patients up to Ten Years after Treatment-A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: This cross-sectional study evaluated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on (1) oral hygiene, (2) periodontal health, (3) retainer failure, (4) orthodontic treatment satisfaction, and (5) outcome satisfaction in orthodontic retention patients. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether orthodontic retention treatment is associated with patient-reported outcome measures on oral hygiene, periodontal health, and treatment satisfaction. Methods: A ten-item questionnaire on the five PROMs was conducted among 211 consecutive retention patients up to ten years following orthodontic treatment. Linear regression models were computed to detect possible associations between the PROMs and retention treatment or patient characteristics. Results: The presence of a fixed lingual retainer was not associated with the reduced ability to perform oral hygiene, self-perceived periodontal health, or orthodontic outcome satisfaction. Older patients were more content with the orthodontic treatment result (p < 0.05). Patients with fixed lingual retainers in the mandible were less satisfied with the course of orthodontic treatment (p < 0.05). Smokers more often reported gingival bleeding (p < 0.05). Females reported increased gingival recessions (p < 0.05) and perceived their teeth as longer than before treatment (p < 0.05). Longer orthodontic treatment duration corresponded to retainer failure (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In general, long-term orthodontic retention patients were satisfied with orthodontic treatment. These patients reported the satisfactory ability to perform adequate oral hygiene and periodontal health, and they communicated a high degree of treatment and outcome contentment. However, patients with a retainer in the mandible were less satisfied with orthodontic treatment.

Cost analysis of two types of fixed maxillary retainers and a removable vacuum-formed maxillary retainer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There has been an increased interest in conducting healthcare economic evaluations. Also, orthodontic treatments have gathered focus from an economic point of view, however orthodontic research seldom examines both clinical and economic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the costs of three retention methods: a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors, a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors and canines, and a removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in costs for the three types of retention methods.

TRIAL DESIGN

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety adolescent patients, 54 girls and 36 boys, treated with fixed or removable retainers in the maxilla, were recruited to the study. The patients were randomized in blocks of 30, by an independent person, to one of three groups: bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 13-23, bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 12-22, and removable VFR. A cost analysis was made regarding chair time costs based on the costs per hour for the specialist in orthodontics, and material costs plus any eventual costs for repairs of the appliance. Changes in Little's irregularity index and in single contact point discrepancies (CPDs) were measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. The analysis was performed at 2 years of retention.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in costs between the maxillary fixed retainers and the VFRs was found, however, the material and emergency costs were significantly higher for the VFR compared with the bonded retainers. All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity, and no statistically significant differences in irregularity or CPDs of the maxillary anterior teeth in the three groups was detected.

LIMITATIONS

It was a single-centre trial, and hence less generalizable. Costs depended on local factors, and consequently, cannot be directly transferred to other settings.

CONCLUSIONS

All three retention methods can be recommended when considering costs and retention capacity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04616755.

[The quality of life of patients after orthodontic treatment depending on the use of different types of retention appliances]

AIM

To assess the impact of the type of retention device on the quality of life of orthodontic patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

311 patients were divided into four groups according to age. At the end of active orthodontic treatment, retainers were installed. After 6 months, a questionnaire was conducted using the standard OHIP-14 questionnaire in order to identify the attitude to the equipment used, the presence or absence of relapses and satisfaction with the state of the dental system.

RESULTS

The number of relapses in all groups is approximately at the same level, which indicates almost equal opportunities for retainers to retain the achieved result. There is no correlation between the convenience of using a particular type of retainer and the willingness to do so.

CONCLUSION

The motivation of patients to use removable or non-removable retention devices to a certain extent depends not only on the type of retainer, but also on the age at which the treatment was performed.

Three-dimensional analysis of the posttreatment displacements of mandibular anterior teeth with rigid and flexible lingual retainers

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to analyze any posttreatment changes in the positions of mandibular anterior teeth retained by 2 different fixed retention methods (rigid or flexible) and their effectiveness in minimizing postorthodontic tooth movement.

METHODS

Thirty patients were selected for inclusion in this retrospective study. Group I consisted of 15 patients with 0.032-in stainless steel rigid retainers bonded to canines only. Group II consisted of 15 patients with 0.0215-in twisted stainless steel flexible retainer bonded to all mandibular anterior teeth. Geomagic Control (3DS Systems, Rock Hill, SC) software was used to quantify the changes between selected points. Paired t test was used for intragroup comparisons in all 3 coordinates, and an independent-sample t test was used for intergroup comparison.

RESULTS

In the transverse dimension, significant intergroup differences were found in displacements of distoincisal points of the right lateral (P <0.05) and left central incisors (P <0.01). In the sagittal dimension, significant intergroup differences were found in the displacements of mesioincisal point of the right central incisor (P <0.05) and distoincisal point of the left central incisor (P <0.01). Examining total displacement, there were significant intergroup differences in mesioincisal point on the right central incisor, distoincisal point on the left lateral incisor (P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that central incisor contacts were more likely to shift with the rigid retainers, especially in sagittal and transverse dimensions. However, no statistically or clinically significant changes were noted in the third-order or vertical positions of the teeth with either retention method.

The effectiveness of a bespoke mobile application in improving adherence with removable orthodontic retention over 12 months: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim was to analyze the effect of providing a mobile application (My Retainers) on adherence with removable retention.

METHODS

Eighty-four participants planned for thermoplastic retainers were randomly allocated to 2 groups. The intervention group was given access to a bespoke mobile application, while the control group was not given access. Baseline data were obtained at the removal of orthodontic appliances with follow-up at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome was objectively assessed retainer wear recorded using a TheraMon microelectronic sensor (MC Technology GmbH, Hargelsberg, Austria). Secondary outcomes were stability and periodontal implications.

RESULTS

The objectively assessed wear time at 12 months was low in both groups, being marginally higher in the intervention (median, 3.09 h/d; interquartile range, 8.1) than the control group (median, 1.44 h/d; interquartile range, 9.22) with no between-group statistical difference (P = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.91 to 1.19). No statistically significant difference was identified between the groups in terms of stability and periodontal outcomes. Improvement in plaque scores (P <0.0001; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.15) and bleeding on probing (P <0.0001, 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.12) was noted over time with no periodontal attachment loss detected over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of the mobile application did not lead to improved adherence with thermoplastic retainer wear. Similarly, no benefit in respect of either occlusal stability or periodontal health was observed over the 12-month study period. Further novel approaches to improve adherence with retainer wear and oral hygiene measures are required.

REGISTRATION

NCT03224481.

PROTOCOL

Not published.

FUNDING

This work was supported by funding from the European Orthodontic Society.

Treatment stability with bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In orthodontics, the retention phase can be considered challenging and unpredictable. Therefore, evidence obtained from different retention protocols is important to facilitate clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) regarding their capacity to maintain treatment stability, periodontal effects, and failure rates.

SEARCH METHODS AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Ten databases comprising published and unpublished literature were systematically searched up to August 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing both retainers were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The risk of bias (RoB) evaluation was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration RoB Tool 2.0. All steps of the screening phase and RoB assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. The Grade of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Initial database search yielded 923 studies. After duplicates removal and full-text assessment, five RCTs remained. Overall, the studies presented Low RoB, except one study judged with 'Some concerns'. Based on the included studies, on a short-term (3-6 months) and long-term (4 years) basis, bonded retainers (BRs) were more effective to maintain treatment stability than VFRs in the lower arch. However, from 12 to 24 months both retainers presented the same efficacy. In the upper arch, the retainers were equally effective. BRs were associated with greater plaque and calculus accumulation than VFRs after 12 months. The retainers' failure rates were similar in the upper arch on the first year of retention; however, after 2 years VFRs showed significantly greater failure rates. Contrarily, BRs presented greater failure rates in the lower arch than VFRs.

LIMITATIONS

The findings of the included studies may be influenced by different factors related to the unpredictability of relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the evidence generated in this systematic review derived from a moderate level of certainty. In the lower arch, BRs are more effective than VFRs to maintain treatment stability in the initial 6 months of retention and in the long term. In the upper arch, both retention protocols are equally effective.

REGISTRATION

Regist0ration number: PROSPERO CRD42020199392.

FUNDING

Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Educational Personnel (CAPES, Process code-001).

Can Orthodontic Treatment Be Stable 20 Years after the End of the Treatment Scheme? Treatment of a Class 2, Division 1 Malocclusion with Severe Skeletal Discrepancy and Its 20-Year Follow-Up

Class II malocclusions, after class I malocclusions, are the most frequent in the juvenile Italian population. They are most often skeletal in origin and due to mandibular retrusion. Functional devices seem to have a beneficial effect on the growth of the jaw. Long-term maintenance of the achieved results is essential for therapeutic success in any orthodontic treatment; moreover, the retention phase should last as long as possible, especially in the lower anterior sector. A female patient aged 10 years and 3 months presented a visibly convex profile and a severe mandibular retrusion. The anamnesis brought to light the habit of oral breathing and lower-lip sucking. The cephalometric analysis showed a normodivergent skeletal class II. The first treatment phase involved the use of a Bass type for 12 months at the end of the functional treatment; the second phase of fixed therapy was carried out following the principles of bioprogressive techniques. The photos at the end of treatment show an important improvement in the profile; a full class I ratio of molar and canine teeth was achieved with an excellent interarch relationship and a correction of the V-shaped upper arch. The result is occlusally and profilometrically stable after 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, and 20 years. The maintenance of a stable orthodontic result over time is the result not only of a correct and physiological occlusion but also and above all of a correct diagnosis and correct identification of problems that can cause the malocclusion itself. Flawed habits such as interposition of the lower lip and oral breathing must be intercepted and corrected early in order to correct them and not affect the long-term result of orthodontic treatment. In this case, a functional device associated with an orthodontic fixed finishing and a correct retention phase were necessary to correctly treat a second-class mandibular retrusion whose result remained stable 20 years after the end of therapy.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare the survival rates and periodontal health in patients with 3-strand round twisted (RT) vs 8-strand rectangular braided (RB) fixed retainers bonded to all 6 anterior teeth in the mandible.

METHODS

A total of 133 patients completing orthodontic treatment (median age, 24.6 years; 25th percentile, 17.2 years; 75th percentile, 32.4 years; minimum, 15.1 years; maximum, 49.8 years) were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an RT or RB wire retainer. Inclusion criteria were all mandibular permanent incisors and canines present, no active caries, no restorations, no fractures on the mandibular incisors and canines, no periodontal disease. Patients with poor oral hygiene before debonding were excluded from the trial. The primary outcome was any first-time retainer failure. Secondary outcomes were periodontal index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, gingival index, and probing depth. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of size 4, 6, or 8 with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was not possible in this trial. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after placement of the retainer. Retainer survival was assessed using Cox regression. Periodontal parameters were reported at each time point and generalised estimating equations were used to assess the effect of treatment, time, tooth and treatment X time interaction on the indices.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; in 1 patient, the intervention was discontinued. During 2-year follow-up 37 of 66 (56.1%, RT group) and 32 of 66 (48.5%, RB group) retainers failed at least once (log-rank test, P = 0.55). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.12; P = 0.13). Neither age nor gender was a predictor of failure. All periodontal parameters (periodontal index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, gingival index, and pocket depth) were comparable between groups and remained relatively stable during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk for first-time failure was high and amounted to 52.3% (56.1% in the RT group and 48.5% in the RB group). There was no difference in terms of survival or periodontal health between the examined retainers.

Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability of mandibular anterior teeth at the 1-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-two patients were randomly allocated to four groups using different lingual retainers: group 1, 0.016 × 0.022-in dead-soft wire; group 2, 0.0215-in 5-strand stainless steel wire; group 3, 0.014 × 0.014-in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing nitinol retainer (Memotain); group 4, connected bonding pads. Plaque, gingival, and calculus indexes were used to evaluate periodontal health, and Little's irregularity index, intercanine width, and arch length measurements were performed to evaluate stability. All measurements were performed at each time point (debonding and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).

RESULTS

The mean value of the gingival index obtained in group 3 was lower than the mean value for all other groups. The mean value of the calculus index was the lowest in group 3, and there was a significant difference between group 3 and groups 1 and 2. No differences were found among the groups in terms of plaque index, intercanine width, and arch length. The least irregularity was obtained in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences between these groups and groups 1 and 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Gingival inflammation and calculus accumulation were the lowest in group 3 (Memotain). The irregularity for Memotain and stainless steel retainers was less than or the other groups. However, no clinically significant worsening of periodontal health or relapse were seen in any groups after 1 year.

Orthodontic retention protocols: an evidence-based overview

In view of the diversity of orthodontic presentations, a single optimal retention protocol does not exist, with approaches tailored based on pre-treatment characteristics, treatment-induced changes and general patient characteristics. However, orthodontic practitioners should be responsive to the best available evidence to formulate optimal retention protocols in terms of appliance type, design and regimen, in particular. Based on a comprehensive search strategy, we discuss fundamental aspects concerning orthodontic retention of particular interest both to orthodontists and general dentists. These include stability and periodontal outcomes, cost-effectiveness, patient experiences, survival and failure rates of retainers, and the duration of retention.

A brief history of orthodontic retention

The retention phase has become an accepted part of orthodontic therapy. Irrespective of the patient's age, underlying malocclusion or the type of mechanotherapy, an orthodontist will use some retention method in virtually every patient following completion of the active treatment. This article presents a short description of the history of orthodontic retention and highlights major developments in retention strategy.

Fixed retention: pitfalls and complications

Long-term stability of orthodontic treatment results is problematic. Long-term or even lifelong retention with bonded retainers is being increasingly used among clinicians. Bonded retainers can provide an efficient and attractive method of retention, particularly because they require minimal compliance from patients. However, the use of bonded retainers is associated with relatively frequent complications, such as detachments of the adhesive layer or wire fractures, as well as unexpected complications with potentially severe consequences with associated periodontal and general health risks. It is imperative that the whole dental team are aware of these pitfalls and complications, and appreciate how to minimise and address these.

Vacuum-formed retainers and bonded retainers for dental stabilization-a randomized controlled trial. Part II: patients' perceptions 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment

OBJECTIVE

To compare removable vacuum-formed Essix C retainers with bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers (CTCs) regarding patients' perceptions after debonding and 6 and 18 months of retention.

TRIAL DESIGN

A single-centre two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This trial included 104 adolescent patients, computer-generated randomized, with sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes, into two groups and stratified by gender. They were treated with fixed appliances with and without tooth extractions in both jaws and were ready for debond. Patients in the intervention arm received a vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the mandible (n = 52), and patients in the active comparator arm received a CTC (n = 52). Both groups had a VFR in the maxilla. Treatment outcome satisfaction, quality of care and attention, side-effects during the retention phase, and retainer acceptance and compliance were assessed with questionnaires at baseline (T1, 2 weeks after debond) and after 6 (T2) and 18 months (T3) of retention. Operator was blinded to group assignment during measurements.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients completed the questionnaires at all three time points. Patients were overall satisfied with treatment outcome, quality of care and attention, and how their retainers worked at all three time points, with no differences between groups. At T1 and T3, the VFR group reported significantly more pain and discomfort (T1: P = 0.005, T3: P < 0.0001) and soreness (T1: P = 0.001, T3: P = 0.011) in the mandible compared to the CTC group. The CTC group found it easier to get used to their retainers. After 18 months, 70.5 per cent in the VFR group and 73.9 per cent in the CTC group reported the recommended wear-time of the VFRs. Decreased wear-time was correlated to perceived pain and discomfort (rs = -0.421, P < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

The results were limited by our retainer design and recommended wear regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Both groups reported high treatment outcome satisfaction and low levels of side-effects during the retention phase. Nevertheless, the VFR group reported more pain and discomfort at T1 and at T3. Self-reported compliance was the same in both groups. The VFR group was more concerned about relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03070444 (https://clinicaltrials.gov).

Stability of maxillary anterior teeth after 2 years of retention in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial comparing two bonded and a vacuum-formed retainer

BACKGROUND

Retention of the maxillary anterior teeth is commonly recommended to maintain the teeth in their corrected positions. Both fixed and removable retention methods are used, but the certainty of evidence is low.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate post-treatment changes in irregularity of the maxillary six anterior teeth and single tooth contact point discrepancy (CPD) of three different retention methods.

TRIAL DESIGN

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety patients, 54 girls and 36 boys, were recruited to the study. The inclusion criteria were adolescent patients treated with fixed appliances at least in the maxilla. After gaining informed consent from the patient and their custodians, the patients were randomized to one of three groups: bonded retainer 13-23, bonded retainer 12-22, and removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) covering the maxillary teeth including the second molars. The randomization, prepared by an independent person, used blocks of 30. The primary outcomes were changes in single CPD and Little's irregularity index (LII) measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts before and after 2-year retention. The study casts were anonymized before assessment and the changes were blinded for the assessor. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. Thus, all randomized patients were incorporated into the final analysis.

RESULTS

The LII and CPDs increased slightly in all three groups without any statistically significant differences between the groups. The VFR group showed a small intercanine width increase and some more changes of canine rotations than in the other groups.

HARMS

No harm was observed in any subjects and none of the patients needed retreatment.

LIMITATIONS

The trial was a single-centre study and short-term changes were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity and all the changes found in the three groups were small and considered clinically insignificant. Thus, the null hypothesis was confirmed. All three methods can be recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04616755.

Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

To compare computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized nitinol retainers with standard stainlesssteel fixed retainers over a 12-month study period.

Methods

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted on 62 patients randomly allocated to a control group that received stainless-steel retainers or a test group that received customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium retainers. Four time points were defined: retainer placement (T0) and 1-month (T1), 6-month (T2), and 12-month (T3) follow-up appointments. At each time point, Little's irregularity index (LII) (primary endpoint) and dental stability measurements such as intercanine width were recorded in addition to assessment of periodontal parameters. Radiological measurements such as the incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA) were recorded at T0 and T3. Failure events (wire integrity or debonding) were assessed at each time point.

Results

From T0 to T3, LII and other dental measurements showed no significant differences between the two groups. The data for periodontal parameters remained stable over the study period, except for the gingival index, which was slightly, but significantly, higher in the test group at T3 (p = 0.039). The IMPA angle showed no intergroup difference. The two groups showed no significant difference in debonding events.

Conclusions

This RCT conducted over a 12-month period demonstrated no significant difference between customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainers and standard stainlesssteel lingual retainers in terms of dental anterior stability and retainer survival. Both retainers eventually appeared to be equally effective in maintaining periodontal health.

Periodontal effects and survival rates of different mandibular retainers: comparison of bonding technique and wire thickness

OBJECTIVES

This non-randomized prospective cohort study aimed to compare the periodontal effects and success rates of mandibular canine-to-canine fixed retainers having different bonding techniques and wire thicknesses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hundred patients requiring retention after orthodontic treatment were assigned to five study groups (n = 20 in each group, 61 females/39 males, median age range 16.5-18.0 years). Retention was provided by 0.0215"/direct, 0.0215"/indirect, 0.0175"/direct, 0.0175"/indirect bonded multistranded wires and removable Essix appliances. The primary and secondary outcomes were periodontal effects and success rates. The patients were examined in 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months follow-up appointments. Plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per retainer wire and survival of retainer wires were analysed by Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed between the fixed retainer (FR) and Essix (E) groups in gingival index scores at 1 month [mean FR: 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-1.44), mean E: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.14-0.69), mean difference: 0.73, P < 0.01], 3 months [mean FR: 0.97/1.01 (95% CI: 0.65-1.30/0.72-1.30), mean E: 0.52 (95% CI: 0.25-0.82), mean differences: 0.45/0.49, P < 0.05], 6 months [mean FR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.62-1.27), mean E: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.15-0.58), mean difference: 0.59, P < 0.05] and in bleeding on probing scores at 1 month [mean FR: 3.05 (95% CI: 2.12-3.98), mean E: 1.15 (95% CI: 0.42-1.88), mean difference: 1.90, P < 0.01]. The survival rates of retainer wires were 85 per cent for the 0.0215" direct/indirect and 90 per cent for the 0.0175" direct/indirect groups for the 6 months follow-up.

LIMITATIONS

Six months follow-up period, which demonstrates only short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The periodontal outcomes or survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers were not affected by bonding technique or wire thickness, whereas gingival health improved with Essix retainers but not with fixed retainers.

Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers : A prospective short-term study

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare the short-term periodontal effects and survival rates of mandibular lingual canine-to-canine Memotain (CA-Digital, Mettmann, Germany) and five-stranded bonded retainers.

METHODS

In all, 52 patients requiring retention after orthodontic treatment were assigned to 2 study groups (n = 26 in each group). Retention was provided by Memotain retainers which were fabricated digitally using CAD-CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) technology in the first group and by five-stranded retainers which were fabricated manually using a conventional bending method in the second group. The patients were examined at the following time points: 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months. Plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per tooth, and survival rate of retainer wires were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U, Friedman, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and χ² tests.

RESULTS

The differences between the groups were nonsignificant for plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per tooth and survival rate of retainer wires. Significant differences were observed within the groups throughout the follow-up period for plaque index and probing depth. The survival rates of retainer wires were 77% for the Memotain retainers and 73% for the five-stranded retainers for the 6‑month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Periodontal outcomes and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded mandibular lingual bonded retainers were similar. Furthermore, periodontal health was maintained and considerably high survival rates were achieved with both retainer types.

Orthodontic Bonded Retainers: a Narrative Review

Indefinite retention is now considered essential to prevent relapse after orthodontic treatment. Compliance with removable retainer wear is suboptimal and appears to decline with time post-treatment. As a result, use of bonded retainers may become more commonplace in the future. In this narrative review, the characteristics of bonded retainers are outlined and a summary of the evidence from randomized clinical trials regarding their effectiveness is provided. Guidance is also offered regarding care and maintenance.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: All general dental practitioners (GDPs) should be familiar with types of bonded retainers, evidence relating to their effectiveness and the GDP's role regarding their care and maintenance.