Posterior occlusion changes with a Hawley vs Perfector and Hawley retainer. A follow-up study

Changes in the distribution of occlusal forces in the course of the orthodontic retention phase : A prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Aim of the present study was to assess the relative distribution of occlusal forces after orthodontic treatment and during the first 3 months of the retention phase using a computerized occlusal analysis system (T-Scan, Tekscan Inc., Norwood, MA, USA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 52 patients were included in this prospective cohort study and underwent analysis of occlusal forces on the level of tooth, jaw-half, and -quadrant during a 3-month period. Furthermore, differences between three retention protocols (group I: removable appliances in both jaws; group II: fixed 3-3 lingual retainers in both jaws; group III: removable appliance in the maxilla and fixed 3-3 lingual retainer in mandible) were assessed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests at 5%.

RESULTS

Directly after debonding, measured forces distribution were similar to published references for untreated samples. In the following, no significant difference was found between retention protocols II and III with regard to the asymmetry of the anterior occlusal forces. Both groups maintained an asymmetric force distribution in the anterior segment during the study period. There was also no difference between groups II and III in the distribution of occlusal forces for the posterior segments. Both retention concepts kept the symmetrical distribution of occlusal forces stable over the observation period. The retention concept of group I demonstrated a symmetrical distribution of occlusal forces in the anterior segment after debonding and this remained stable during the 3‑month period. In the posterior segment, no improvement of the initially asymmetric masticatory force distribution could be observed.

CONCLUSIONS

All three studied retention protocols showed stability in retaining their original symmetrical or asymmetrical occlusal force distribution posteriorly/anteriorly during the 3‑month observation period. Therefore, an even distribution of occlusal forces should be the aim of the finishing phase, as no relative benefit of any single retention scheme in terms of post-debond improvement during the retention phase was seen.

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.

Do orthodontic treatments using fixed appliances and clear aligner achieve comparable quality of occlusal contacts?

Design Non-randomised cohort study.Cohort selection The inclusion criteria comprised patients who finished their comprehensive orthodontic treatment based on a camouflage non-extraction modality using self-ligating orthodontic appliances therapy (SPEED brackets, Canada or Empower brackets, American Ortho, Sheboygan, WI, USA) or clear aligner therapy (Invisalign, Align Technology, San Jose, CA, USA). Patients were recruited from a university orthodontic clinic and a senior orthodontist's practice. The exclusion criteria comprised patients presenting with hypodontia, microdontia, severe periodontal problems, heavily resorted teeth and patients who were using retainers with occlusal coverage.Data analysis Included patients were assessed at three points in time: at the end of active orthodontic treatment and the start of retention phase (T0); at three months post treatment (T3); and at six months post treatment (T6). The following three assessments were done for each patient at T0, T3 and T6: a T-Scan 10 digital occlusal analysis recording into maximum intercuspation position (MIP); self-report about retainer compliance; and self-assessment of occlusal comfort using a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0-10 (0 = very uncomfortable; 10 = maximum comfort).The digital occlusal analysis was performed using a 100μ thin, flexible, horseshoe-shaped Mylar sensor (Novus HD sensor, Tekscan Inc, S. Boston, MA, USA). This sensor contains 1,370 active pressure sensing cells, known as sensels, arranged in a compact grid, shaped as a dental arch. The patients were given instructions on how to bite on the sensor. With the sensor still in the patient's mouth, three consecutive self-intercuspated closure-into-MIP registrations were recorded. If there was a need to repeat the procedure, one minute was given as a rest. If several recordings were done for the same patient in the same visit, the most consistency between the three consecutive intercuspations was used for analysis. In addition, the same sensor was used in T0, T3 and T6, unless the sensor shown excessive wear.The following outcomes were assessed using the digital occlusal analysis: 1) an estimate of occlusal contact surface area based on the activated sensels on the sensor at MIP; 2) the total surface of contacts and the area ratio between anterior (canine to canine) to posterior (premolar to second molar) contact surfaces; 3) the overall relative force distribution based on the by the position of the centre of force (COF); 4) the symmetry of contact distribution was expressed as the percentage of contacts on the right side to the left side (%R/L); and 5) the time-simultaneity of the closure into MIP contacts was calculated by the occlusion time measurement which is the duration between first contact and the time MIP was reached.Results In total, 39 patients were enrolled in the study. The self-ligating fixed appliance group included 25 patients (mean age 18.7 ± 5.2; 6 women, 19 men) while the clear aligner therapy group included 14 patients (mean age 20.6 ± 7.3; ten women, four men). Both groups were matched in terms of age, Angle's classification, symmetry, retention protocol and total number of bonded lingual wires or facial type. However, they were not matched in terms of sex, with more women in the aligner group (p = 0.007). Moreover, eight patients (four in each group) were excluded from the study later on due to a change in the retention protocol or a missed visit. The results showed that self-reported compliance with a Hawley retainer was not different between groups. Occlusal comfort was similar in both groups at treatment completion, with a median score of eight in both groups.The results showed that were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding all outcomes assessed using the digital occlusal analysis. Although the %R/L (normal range = 50% ± 5%) was not significantly different between both groups, neither treatment resulted in ideal occlusal balance (ie symmetry). Indeed, ten patients finished their treatment with subtle asymmetry (%R/L >50 ± 10%), especially in the self-ligating fixed appliance group (nine patients) showing side force differences (five right dominant, four left dominant) versus only one patient in the clear aligner group (left dominant).The COF moved posteriorly in both groups from T0 to T6, in parallel with a decreased ratio of anterior to posterior surface area. A statistically significant difference was observed in the anteroposterior position of COF between sexes, being more anterior in women at all times (p <0.002).Conclusions The quality of the occlusal contacts in MIP was comparable in both groups at T0, T3 and T6. Neither treatment resulted in an ideal occlusal balance (that is, symmetry). Ten patients finished their treatment with subtle occlusal force asymmetry (that is, asymmetric left-to-right side occlusal force distribution), especially in the self-ligating fixed appliance group. Most occlusal changes happened during the first three months of the retention phase, with more posterior contacts forces developing in both groups. In this study, female patients maintained more anterior COF when compared to male patients.

Is the quality of occlusal contacts comparable after aligner and fixed orthodontic therapy? A non-randomized cohort comparison using computerized occlusal analysis during 6 months of retention

OBJECTIVE

Less than ideal contacts have been reported following aligner therapy, but it is considered a transitory problem, spontaneously resolving with the phenomenon of settling. Methods: Thirty-nine orthodontic patients (14 treated with aligners; 25 with fixed appliances) were evaluated with a digital occlusal analysis system (T-scan™10), assessing Maximum Intercuspation contact simultaneity, symmetry, and relative force distribution at treatment completion and after 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

No significant differences in occlusal contact quality were found between groups at treatment completion or follow-up. The center of force moved posteriorly and remained stable after 3 months but was located more anteriorly in females (p = 0.01). One-third of patients (both groups combined) had marked contact force asymmetry even after 6 months' retention. Conclusion: Occlusal contacts were comparable at completion of treatment with aligners or brackets and after 3-6 months of retention. Settling did not improve marked asymmetry in all patients.

Maxillomandibular Transverse Osteodistraction: A Multidisciplinary Case Report with 30-Month Follow-Up

Aim

To describe a multidisciplinary treatment to correct a severe II class malocclusion with reduced both maxillary and mandibular transverse dimensions and dental crowding. Case Report. A 17-year-old young woman presented with an increased overjet complaining chiefly of forwardly placed upper front teeth and unpleasant smile aesthetics. The patient facially exhibited a gently convex profile, severe mentalis strain on lip closure, and dark buccal corridors. The intraoral assessment indicates Class II molar relationship bilaterally, mandibular and maxillary anterior crowding, and narrow shape of upper and lower arches. The cephalometric evaluation of the lateral radiograph of the skull evidences a skeletal Class II with a reduction of lower face height. Based upon the diagnostic records and consultation with the patient, surgically assisted expansion of both arches using bone-borne distractors, comprehensive orthodontic treatment, and combined jaw surgery was planned.

Results

This approach permitted achieving most of the desired objectives in approximately 30 months. The follow-up records 30 months after treatment conclusion showed a stable occlusion. No complications were clinically and radiographically noticeable during the follow-up.

Correcting severe scissor bite in an adult

Scissor bite often remains unnoticed by patients although it can adversely affect facial symmetry, jaw growth, and mastication. This case report illustrates the efficacy of temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs) and a modified lingual arch in correcting severe scissor bite. A 28-year-old woman presented with severe scissor bite in the mandibular right posterior segment. To treat this condition, TSADs were used for maxillary posterior intrusion and a modified lingual arch for buccally uprighting mandibular posterior teeth. Long-term retention records demonstrate stable treatment results.

Comparison of Stability of the Results of Orthodontic Treatment and Gingival Health between Hawley and Vacuum-formed Retainers

Aim: Retention is one of the stages of orthodontic treatment, which is an attempt to retain teeth in their corrected positions after active treatment with the use of fixed orthodontic appliances. The aim of the present study was to compare the stability of the results of orthodontic treatment and the gingival health between Hawley retainer (HR) and vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) with two different thicknesses. Materials and methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 66 patients undergoing comprehensive orthodontic treatment in a private office were evaluated after completion of treatment. The subjects were randomly assigned to three groups. At the end of orthodontic treatment, the subjects in all the groups received a fixed bonded retainer in the mandible; in the maxilla, group I received an HR, group II received a VFR with a thickness of 1.5 mm, and group III received a VFR with a thickness of 1 mm. The American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) index was used at the end of treatment (before the delivery of the retainers) and 6 months after the use of retainers to evaluate the stability of the results of orthodontic treatment. Gingival index (GI) was used at the two above-mentioned intervals to evaluate gingival health. The ABO-OGS measurements were carried out on dental casts by a clinician who was blinded to the types of retainers the patients wore. Data were analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20, using proper statistical analyses. Results: Six months after the delivery of retainers, ABO-OGS and GI scores with the 1.5 mm VFR were higher than those in the two other groups, with no significant differences between the three groups. There were no significant differences between the ABO-OGS scores before the delivery of retainers and 6 months after the use of retainers in any of the study groups. In the HR and 1.5 mm VFR groups, there were significant differences in GI scores between the period before the delivery of the retainers and 6 months after their delivery; however, in the 1 mm VFR group, no significant differences were observed in GI scores between the two time intervals. Conclusion: Hawley retainer and 1 mm thick and 1.5 mm thick VFRs were equally effective in preserving and stabilizing the results of orthodontic treatment during the 6-month interval after the completion of orthodontic treatment. In addition, there were no significant differences between the three retainers in relation to gingival health. Clinical significance: The VFR might be a good alternative for HR due to its better esthetic appearance and greater popularity with orthodontic patients. Keywords: American Board of Orthodontics model grading system, American Board of Orthodontics objective frading system, Gingival index, Hawley retainers, Vacuum-formed retainers.

The effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

In the view of the widespread acceptance of indefinite retention, it is important to determine the effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers on periodontal health, survival and failure rates of retainers, cost-effectiveness, and impact of orthodontic retainers on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken based on a defined electronic and gray literature search strategy (

PROSPERO

CRD42015029169). The following databases were searched (up to October 2015); MEDLINE via OVID, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, BBO, ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis database. Randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series (minimum sample size of 20) with minimum follow-up periods of 6 months reporting periodontal health, survival and failure rates of retainers, cost-effectiveness, and impact of orthodontic retainers on patient-reported outcomes were identified. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of included trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified, 18 randomized controlled trials and 6 prospective cohort studies. Of these, only 16 were deemed to be of high quality. Meta-analysis was unfeasible due to considerable clinical heterogeneity and variations in outcome measures. The mean failure risk for mandibular stainless steel fixed retainers bonded from canine to canine was 0.29 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.26, 0.33) and for those bonded to canines only was 0.25 (95 % CI: 0.16, 0.33). A meta-regression suggested that failure of fixed stainless steel mandibular retainers was not directly related to the period elapsed since placement (P = 0.938).

CONCLUSION

Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to elucidate the benefits and potential harms associated with orthodontic retainers.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of retention, there is a tendency for teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse, almost every person who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 26 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 26 January 2016). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help identify any unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. The outcomes of interest were: how well the teeth were stabilised, failure of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses when studies with similar methodology reported the same outcome. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index to measure relapse.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies (1722 participants) in the review. There are also four ongoing studies and four studies await classification. The 15 included studies evaluated four comparisons: removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies); different types of fixed retainers (four studies); different types of removable retainers (eight studies); and one study compared a combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four studies had an unclear risk of bias and seven studies had a high risk of bias. Removable versus fixed retainers Thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03). This was based on one trial with 84 participants that was at high risk of bias; it was low quality evidence. Results on retainer failure were inconsistent. There was evidence of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; one trial, 84 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence), but participants found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60). Fixed versus fixed retainersThe studies did not report stability, adverse effects or participant satisfaction. It was possible to pool the data on retention failure from three trials that compared polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer in the lower arch with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57; moderate heterogeneity; three trials, 228 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in failure rates. It was also possible to pool the data from two trials that compared the same types of upper fixed retainers, with a similar finding: RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.78; low heterogeneity; two trials, 174 participants, low quality evidence). Removable versus removable retainersOne study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainer showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (full-time) (both low quality evidence).In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers. Other retainer comparisonsAnother study with a low risk of bias looked at three different approaches to retention for people with crowding, but normal jaw relationships. The study found that there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers full-time provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants.Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed.