Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

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CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and OpenGrey up to 27 April 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.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.

Thermoformed Retainer: An Effective Option for Long-Term Stability

Introduction

The concept of orthodontic retention is moving toward the idea that teeth will move unless retained indefinitely. However, permanent retention implies permanent supervision, and that is where reality clashes with stability. The cornerstone of Essix permanent retention is the complete delegation of responsibility to the patient. Essix retainers have nothing to adjust, but maximum collaboration of the patient is essential to achieve long-term stability. The purpose of this paper is to show the effectiveness of the thermoplastic appliance as a retainer, using a clinical case with a 10-year follow-up. Case Report. A 33-year-old male patient presented with a class II malocclusion division 2 and normal skeletal pattern. According to the patient's desire, a treatment plan was proposed to obtain the aesthetic result of the smile, maintaining the molar and canine class II relationship. The orthodontic therapy was performed by using the Invisalign System. In this case, it was possible to appreciate a posterior occlusal stability after 10 years.

Conclusion

Currently, among orthodontists, the use of removable plastic devices is gaining popularity thanks to their capability to encapsulate and retain both posterior and anterior teeth. In this article, the technical features of thermoformed retainers will be described and one clinical case with a 10-year follow-up will be presented to emphasize the effectiveness of these retainers.

A novel and simple technique for correcting localised rotations in the early alignment stage

Correcting severe tooth rotations can be challenging. There are many ways to de-rotate teeth with fixed or removable appliances. Mechanically, the best and most effective way is one that produces a two-force couple system to rotate a tooth around its centre of rotation (longitudinal axis). The aim of this article was to introduce a simple and efficient technique using a closed coil to correct localised tooth rotations in the early alignment stage, utilising a simple two-force couple system. Furthermore, some of the biomechanical principles concerning de-rotation will be revisited.

Assessment of surface roughness changes on orthodontic acrylic resins by all-in-one spray disinfectant solutions

Background. The disinfection of orthodontic acrylic resins might change the physical and mechanical properties of these materials. We aimed to investigate the impact of four different commercially available disinfectants on the surface roughness of acrylic resins used for orthodontic appliances.

Methods. Four disinfectant solutions (BirexSE, Opti-Cide3, COEfect MinuteSpray, and CaviCide Spray) were used to disinfect orthodontic acrylic resins using the spraying method. The resins were subjected to repeated disinfection protocols. Distilled water, also applied via spraying method, was used as a control. Surface roughness was scrutinized to examine the extent of surface topography changes by stylus profilometry. Data normality was evaluated via the Shapiro–Wilk test, followed by the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test for non-parametric data or paired Student’s t-test for parametric data to compare intra-group differences in roughness before and after the use of the disinfectant solutions.

Results. Some of the disinfectants (BirexSE and CaviCide) resulted in significant changes in surface roughness values before and after the disinfection compared to the controls (P<0.05). The groups that were in contact with distilled water, Opti-Cide, and Coeffect did not exhibit significant differences in surface roughness before and after the intervention (P>0.05). However, from a clinical perspective, the resulting variations in surface roughness (<%0.15) induced by these solutions might not reflect clinically significant differences.

Conclusion. The use of disinfectant solutions is unlikely to harm the surface of orthodontic acrylic resins. Oral care providers need to be attentive to the interpretation and implementation of clinically significant changes in their evidence-based approach regarding potential material damages by disinfection sprays.

Intra-examiner and Inter-examiner Reproducibility in Irregularity Index Measurements

Objective

This study aimed to assess intra-examiner and inter-examiner reproducibility in irregularity index measurements.

Methods

Twenty plaster casts of moderately crowded arches were randomly selected, and five contact point displacements (CPD) at lower anterior segment (through no. 33 to no. 43) were recorded using digital calipers on two different time points by three examiners to determine irregularity index (sum of five CPDs). To evaluate intra-examiner and inter-examiner differences, paired t-test and analysis of variance were used, respectively. Correlation analyses were performed between examiner pairs, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were determined. Statistical significance was set at p≤0.05.

Results

Only a few of the repeated measurements of examiners showed significant differences (p≤0.05). All researchers were consistent in repeated measurements (p=0.000), and ICCs ranged between 0.916 and 0.986. For one CPD measurement, a statistically significant difference was detected among examiners (p=0.020). High correlation was found for inter-examiner repeatability (p<0.05), and ICCs ranged between 0.739 and 0.984. But when the difference of 1.5 mm among measurements was set as clinically relevant, the percentages of these values for repeated measures were 15%, 5%, and 45% for examiner 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These percentages were 25%, 80%, and 65% for examiner pairs.

Conclusion

Irregularity index may be a misleading index to determine anterior alignment especially when measuring small CPD.

Antibacterial, Hydrophilic Effect and Mechanical Properties of Orthodontic Resin Coated with UV-Responsive Photocatalyst

Photocatalysts have multiple applications in air purifiers, paints, and self-cleaning coatings for medical devices such as catheters, as well as in the elimination of xenobiotics. In this study, a coating of a UV-responsive photocatalyst, titanium dioxide (TiO₂), was applied to an orthodontic resin. The antibacterial activity on oral bacteria as well as hydrophilic properties and mechanical properties of the TiO₂-coated resin were investigated. ultraviolet A (UVA) (352 nm) light was used as the light source. Antibacterial activity was examined with or without irradiation. Measurements of early colonizers and cariogenic bacterial count, i.e., colony forming units (CFU), were performed after irradiation for different time durations. Hydrophilic properties were evaluated by water contact angle measurements. While, for the assessment of mechanical properties, flexural strength was measured by the three-point bending test. In the coat(+)light(+) samples the CFU were markedly decreased compared to the control samples. Water contact angle of the coat(+)light(+) samples was decreased after irradiation. The flexural strength of the specimen irradiated for long time showed a higher value than the required standard value, indicating that the effect of irradiation was weak. We suggest that coating with the ultraviolet responsive photocatalyst TiO₂ is useful for the development of orthodontic resin with antimicrobial properties.

Retention in orthodontics

Retention is necessary following orthodontic treatment to prevent relapse of the final occlusal outcome. Relapse can occur as a result of forces from the periodontal fibres around the teeth which tend to pull the teeth back towards their pre-treatment positions, and also from deflecting occlusal contacts if the final occlusion is less than ideal. Age changes, in the form of ongoing dentofacial growth, as well as changes in the surrounding soft tissues, can also affect the stability of the orthodontic outcome. It is therefore essential that orthodontists, patients and their general dental practitioners understand the importance of wearing retainers after orthodontic treatment. This article will update the reader on the different types of removable and fixed retainers, including their indications, duration of wear, and how they should be managed in order to minimise any unwanted effects on oral health and orthodontic outcomes. The key roles that the general dental practitioner can play in supporting their patients wearing orthodontic retainers are also emphasised.

Orthodontic treatment stability predictors: A retrospective longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

To examine medium- to long-term orthodontic treatment stability and its possible association with certain variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective longitudinal study of 70 postretention patients, the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was measured at the start (T1) and end (T2) of treatment and between 4 and 10 years afterwards (T3). The stability was considered absolute when the T2 and T3 values were identical and relative when the difference was within the ±5 range.

RESULTS

Among the 70 patients, 65.8% were female and 34.2% were male. Their mean age was 14.5 years. The mean treatment length was 2.4 years. The mean retention phase was 3.3 years. The mean pre- and posttreatment PAR scores were 29.8 (T1) and 6.3 (T2). The mean T1-T2 difference was 23.6. The mean T2-T3 difference was -0.39.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the study, 7.1% presented absolute stability and 68.6% presented relative stability. Lower anterior segment alignment and overbite were the most unstable occlusal features and tended to worsen. Fixed retainer (odds ratio [OR] 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.98) as a protective factor and years without retention (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.03-1.68) as a risk factor are predictor variables of instability in the case of lower anterior segment alignment. The PAR value at the end of treatment (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.08-1.54) and extractions (OR 4.76; 95% CI 1.05-21.6) before treatment are predictors for midline instability.

Twelve-year follow-up of mandibular incisor stability: Comparison between two bonded lingual orthodontic retainers

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term outcome 9 years after removal of two different types of fixed retainers used for stabilization of the mandibular anterior segment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-four children who had undergone orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both arches were divided into two groups depending on which kind of retainer being used. Twenty-eight of the patients had a canine-to-canine retainer bonded to the canines and 36 had a bonded twistflex retainer 3-3, bonded to each tooth. Measurements were made on study models and lateral head radiographs, before and after treatment, 6 years after treatment, and 12 years after treatment, with a mean of 9.2 years after removal of the retainers.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the two groups at the long-term follow-up according to Little's Irregularity Index or available space for the mandibular incisors. The overjet and overbite were reduced after treatment in both groups and stayed stable throughout the observation period. Also, no differences in bonding failures between the two retainers were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Both a canine-to-canine retainer bonded only to the canines and a twistflex retainer 3-3 bonded to each tooth can be recommended. However, neither of the retention types prevented long-term changes of mandibular incisor irregularity or available space for the mandibular incisors after removal of the retainers.

Displacement and force distribution of splinted and tilted mandibular anterior teeth under occlusal loads: an in silico 3D finite element analysis

Background

Fixed orthodontic retainers have numerous advantages, but it is not known whether they can exert pathological forces on supporting tissues around the splinted teeth. The purpose of this study was to investigate how the inclination of the lower anterior teeth can affect dental displacement and also change the direction of occlusal loads exerted to dental and its supporting tissues.

Methods

Four three-dimensional finite element models of the anterior part of the mandible were designed. All the models contained the incisors and canines, their periodontal ligament layers (PDLs), the supporting bone (both spongy and cortical), and a pentaflex splinting wire placed in the lingual side of the teeth. Teeth inclination was considered to be 80° (model 1), 90° (model 2), 100° (model 3), and 110° (model 4) to the horizontal plane. The lower incisors were loaded with a 187-N vertical force. Their displacement patterns and the stress in their PDLs were evaluated.

Results

In incisors with 80° of inclination, less than a 0.1-mm lingual displacement was seen on the incisal edge and a similar distance of displacement towards the labial was seen on their root apices. However, in models with 90°–110° of inclination, the incisal edge displaced labially between about 0.01 and 0.45 mm, while root apices displaced lingually instead. By increasing the angle of the teeth, the strain in the periodontal ligament increased from about 37 to 58 mJ. The von Mises stresses around the cervical and apical areas differed for each tooth and each model, without a similar pattern. Increasing the angle of the teeth resulted in much higher cervical stresses in the incisors, but not in the canines. In the lateral incisor, cervical stress increased until 100° of inclination but reduced to about half by increasing the angle to 110°. Apical stress increased rather consistently in the incisor and lateral incisors, by increasing the inclination. However, in the canines, apical stress reduced to about half, from the first to fourth models.

Conclusions

Increasing the labial inclination can mostly harm the central incisors, followed by the lateral incisors. This finding warns against long durations of splinting in patients with higher and/or patients with reduced labial bone thickness.

Orthodontic retention--three methods trialed

DESIGN

Single centre randomised controlled trial.

INTERVENTION

Patients treated by a single orthodontist were randomised to one of three retention methods: removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) covering the palate and the maxillary anterior teeth from canine-to-canine and bonded canine-to-canine retainer in the lower arch (group V-CTC); maxillary VFR combined with stripping of the lower anterior teeth (group V-S); prefabricated positioner covering all erupted teeth in the maxilla and the mandible (group P). All retention appliances were provided within one hour of debonding.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Dental study casts were taken before treatment, at appliance removal and five years or more out of retention. Little's irregularity index, intercanine and intermolar width, arch length and overbite/overjet were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were randomised to each group with 69 completing the two-year retention period (24 in V-CTC group; 23 in V-S group; 22 in P group). Forty-nine patients were available five years post retention (16 in V-CTC group; 17 in V-S group; 16 in P group). No significant differences were found between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After five years or more out of retention, the three retention methods had achieved equally favourable clinical results. Thus a maxillary VFR combined with a bonded canine-to-canine retainer in the mandible, a maxillary VFR combined with stripping of the mandibular anterior teeth and a prefabricated positioner can all be recommended.

Two-year survival analysis of twisted wire fixed retainer versus spiral wire and fiber-reinforced composite retainers: a preliminary explorative single-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Traditional retainers (both metal and fiber-reinforced composite [FRC]) have limitations, and a retainer made from more flexible ligature wires might be advantageous. We aimed to compare an experimental design with two traditional retainers.

METHODS

In this prospective preliminary clinical trial, 150 post-treatment patients were enrolled and randomly divided into three groups of 50 patients each to receive mandibular canine-to-canine retainers made of FRC, flexible spiral wire (FSW), and twisted wire (TW). The patients were monitored monthly. The time at which the first signs of breakage/debonding were detected was recorded. The success rates of the retainers were compared using chi-squared, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional-hazard regression analyses (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

In total, 42 patients in the FRC group, 41 in the FSW group, and 45 in the TW group completed the study. The 2-year failure rates were 35.7% in the FRC group, 26.8% in the FSW group, and 17.8% in the TW group. These rates differed insignificantly (chi-squared p = 0.167). According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, failure occurred at 19.95 months in the FRC group, 21.37 months in the FSW group, and 22.36 months in the TW group. The differences between the survival rates in the three groups were not significant (Cox regression p = 0.146).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the failure rate of the experimental retainer was two times lower than that of the FRC retainer, the difference was not statistically significant. The experimental TW retainer was successful, and larger studies are warranted to verify these results.

A survey on retention practice among orthodontists in Malaysia

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate retention practices commonly employed by orthodontists. The objectives were to identify the types of retainer frequently used and to investigate the variations in retention practice.

Methods

A total of 97 orthodontists were randomly selected, and a questionnaire consisting of 25 multiple-choice questions sent to them by mail. Upon receiving of the completed questionnaires, the data were statistically analyzed.

Results

A total of 32 responses were received; among these, 59.4% of orthodontists' practiced is in a government setting and 40.6% were in private practice. A vacuum-formed retainer was the most commonly used removable retainer for both maxillary (46.9%) and mandibular (46.9%) arches, followed by a Hawley retainer (maxilla, 43.8%; mandible, 37.5%), and a fixed retainer (maxilla, 3.1%; mandible, 9.4%). Of the responding orthodontists, 78.1% prescribed full-time wear (more than 20 h per day) for a duration of 3–9 months for a maxillary arch, compared to 71.9% for the mandibular arch. Only 18.8% of the orthodontists prescribed part-time wear of the retainer for the maxillary arch, compared to 21.9% for the mandibular arch. The majority of orthodontists did not instruct their patients to stop wearing removable retainers (71.9%) or fixed retainers (66.8%) at any specific time and they preferred their patients to continue wearing retainers.

Conclusions

Vacuum-formed retainers are the most commonly used retainers among orthodontists. The majority of orthodontists prescribed full-time wear for more than 20 h per day with a duration of 3–9 months and preferred indefinite use of the retainer.

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.

Orthodontic retention: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of different retention strategies used to maintain tooth position after treatment by orthodontic appliances.

DATA SOURCES

The search strategy was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The following databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CCT): Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of trials were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering the studies to be included and a quality assessment made for each paper.

DATA SELECTION

The primary outcome was the amount of relapse. Secondary outcomes were survival of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and patient satisfaction.

DATA EXTRACTION

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Five studies (2 RCTs and 3 CCTs) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There was evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (P<0.001) and maxillary anterior segments (P<0.001) when the CSF (circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy) was used in conjunction with a Hawley retainer, compared with a Hawley retainer alone. However, this evidence may be unreliable due to flaws in the study design. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley retainer than with a clear overlay retainer after 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence on which to base the clinical practice of orthodontic retention.

The effect of bonded resin surface area on the detachment force of lingual bonded fixed retainers: An in vitro study

Objective

The aims of this study were to evaluate the relationship between the detachment force and bonding resin surface are and to determine the resin bonding surface area that would provide adequate bonding strength with minimum resin volume.

Methods

One hundred and sixty human premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups of 40 teeth each. The diameter of the resin surface area in each group was as follows: group 1, 1.5 mm; group 2, 2.5 mm; group 3, 3.5 mm; and group 4, 4.5 mm. Respond Dead Soft straight (length 0.0175 inch) was used to fabricate the retainers, and Transbond™ XT was used to fix the retainers to the tooth surfaces. A pair of teeth was embedded in acrylic blocks for each specimen. Thus, each group comprised 20 samples. Fixed retainers were bonded to the teeth, and vertical force was applied at the middle of wire. The force was measured using a universal testing machine.

Results

The mean value of detachment force was the highest for group 4 (102.38 ± 2.92 N), followed by group 3 (63.54 ± 2.21 N), group 2 (51.95 ± 1.61 N), and group 1 (24.14 ± 1.38 N).

Conclusions

The detachment force of lingual fixed retainers was significantly affected as the area of the resin bonding surface increased. Considering the minimum bonding strength of brackets, a resin bonding surface area with a diameter of 3.5 mm would provide adequate bonding strength.

Can the intra-examiner variability of Little's Irregularity Index be improved using 3D digital models of study casts?

OBJECTIVES

To compare contact point displacement measurements, used to determine the Little's Irregularity Index (LII) score on study casts and digital models of study casts by an independent examiner.

METHODS

The contact point displacement measurements of the six maxillary anterior labial teeth were measured on ten study casts using digital callipers and their associated digital models using Creo Parametric software on five occasions following scanning using a LAVA Chairside Oral Scanner (LCOS) three-dimensional (3D) intra oral scanner. Means, standard deviations and coefficients of variation (CoV) were determined, data analyses (Pearson's correlation coefficients (PCCs) and Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)) and statistical analyses (three and two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and Independent Sample Student's t-tests) were carried out (p<0.05).

RESULTS

Significant positive correlations for the contact point displacement measurements were evident between all measurement time points for the study casts (r>0.978; p<0.0001 and ICC>0.910; p<0.0001) and the digital models (r>0.963; p<0.0001 and ICC>0.986; p<0.0001). The CoV results showed that the contact point displacement measurement data from the digital models was more reproducible than the study casts. Of the 50 Independent Sample Student's t-tests, 21 significant increases (p<0.042) were reported in contact point displacement measurements <2.9 mm for the digital models compared with the study casts.

CONCLUSION

The use of 3D digital models can improve the reliability of LII measurements by reducing the subjectivity associated with choosing the anatomic tooth contact points and the awkwardness of measuring the contact point displacements on study casts using a cumbersome calliper technique.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Intra-examiner variability in the measurement of LII is still evident with digital models suggesting that either improved software specifically aimed at the orthodontic community be identified or a new method for measuring anterior incisor crowding be sought.

Evaluation of retention protocols among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Little research has been conducted to evaluate protocols and trends in orthodontic retention. The purpose of this study was to identify the general retention protocols used by orthodontists in the United States. Additionally, our goal was to identify trends in these orthodontic retention protocols by evaluating how they have changed over the past 5 years and how they might continue to change in the next 5 years.

METHODS

The study was conducted via a 36-question electronic survey (REDCap, Nashville, Tenn) with branching logic on certain questions. The survey was sent to all 9143 practicing members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States, and 1632 (18%) responded.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Mean retention protocols of the surveyed population showed predominant use of Hawley or vacuum-formed retainers in the maxillary arch and fixed retention in the mandibular arch. For both arches, there is a current shift away from Hawley retainers and toward vacuum-formed retainers and fixed retention. Respondents who extract fewer teeth reported increased use of fixed retention in the maxillary (P = 0.041) and mandibular (P = 0.003) arches. Respondents who extract fewer teeth and use removable retainers were more likely to tell their patients to wear their retainers at night for the rest of their lives (P = 1.63 × 10(-6)).

Survival time comparison between Hawley and clear overlay retainers: a randomized trial

The objectives of this study were to compare the survival time of the Hawley retainer (HR) and the clear overlay retainer (COR) over one-year follow-up and to analyze risk factors contributing to their breakage. In this randomized, controlled clinical trial, we assigned 120 adolescent patients to receive either the HR or the COR. All specific data on breakage dates, the reasons for breakage, and the broken parts of the retainers were recorded. A survival analysis was used to describe retainer survival over time. No significant differences were observed in survival times between the 2 groups for either the maxillary retainer (p = 0.254) or the mandibular retainer (p = 0.188). Both retainers tended to fracture, but the fracture locations were different. The findings indicate that clinicians should avoid increasing buccal root torque and reinforce the retainer base plates. Breakage rates may not influence the choice of retainer (Trial Registration number is ChiCTR-TRC-00000055).

Cochrane systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION

The Cochrane Collaboration is an international scientific not-for-profit organization the purpose of which is to produce and distribute systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials. The aim of this paper is to list the different existing Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of dentofacial orthopedics (DFO) and to analyse their main features.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The choice of Cochrane systematic reviews based on dentofacial orthopedics was made from the exhaustive list published by the Cochrane Oral Health Group.

RESULTS

A total of 12 systematic Cochrane reviews related to dentofacial orthopedics were listed. All concluded on the need to conduct randomized clinical trials using more appropriate methodologies and comprising larger samples. None of these systematic reviews offered clear proof supporting any one form of treatment or treatment modality.

DISCUSSION

Despite the lack of relevant conclusions in the still meagre number of Cochrane systematic reviews related to DFO, it is essential for orthodontists to regularly consult the reviews in the framework of their daily evidence-based orthodontic practice. This is true too for orthodontic researchers as clinical DFO research needs to be extended with the setting up of methodologically unquestionable randomized clinical trials. However, there exist alternatives to randomized clinical trials offering a lower level of proof but which are better suited to the field of dentofacial orthopedics.

Vacuum-formed retainers more effective than Hawley retainers

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was performed in a single orthodontic practice.

INTERVENTION

The aim was to compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) over a 6-month period of retention. Three hundred and ninety-seven patients were treated by a specialist orthodontist and randomly allocated to wear either Hawley retainers (n=196) or VFR (n=201).

OUTCOME MEASURE

A blinded examiner analysed the records of maxillary and mandibular dental casts at debond and at 6 months into retention, assessing tooth rotation mesial to the first permanent molar, intercanine and intermolar widths, and Little's Index of Irregularity.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifty-five individuals participated through to the conclusion of the trial, giving a completion rate of 89%. The results showed significantly greater changes in irregularity of the incisors in the Hawley group than in the VFR group at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

VRF are more effective than Hawley retainers at holding the correction of the maxillary and mandibular labial segments.

A case of severe caries and demineralisation in a patient wearing an essix-type retainer

This case report presents a patient who developed significant caries and demineralisation due to consumption of large quantities of cariogenic drinks while he was wearing an Essix retainer. The risks to dental health during orthodontic retention and the responsibilities of general dental practitioners, orthodontists and patients are highlighted.