Computerized occlusal analysis of Essix and Hawley retainers used during the retention phase: a controlled clinical trial

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.

Masticatory muscle activity and oral health-related quality of life in patients wearing clear thermoplastic versus wrap-around retainers : A randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the surface electromyography (sEMG) activity of the superficial masseter and anterior temporalis muscles at rest, during maximum voluntary clenching (MVC), and mastication, over 6 months of wearing clear thermoplastic or wrap-around retainers. Furthermore, the patients' oral health-related quality of life was assessed using the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) index at 6 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients aged 14-39 years (19 males/41 females) who received upper and lower retainers after finishing orthodontic treatment were recruited. The patients were randomly divided into a clear thermoplastic retainer group (n = 30) or a wrap-around retainer group (n = 30). The sEMG activity was recorded at retainer delivery (T0), after 3 months (T1), and after 6 months of wearing (T2). The OIDP index was evaluated at T2.

RESULTS

None of the sEMG parameters for the masseter and temporalis muscles were different between the two groups at T0, T1, or T2. Over the period of 6 months, both masticatory muscles in both groups demonstrated increased sEMG activity during MVC and mastication; however, only the temporalis muscle demonstrated decreased normalized sEMG activity at rest (P < 0.05). The frequency and severity of the OIDP in the eating aspect at T2 was low and similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

sEMG activity of the two masticatory muscles tended to increase during MVC and mastication, while temporalis muscle activity tended to decrease at rest during the observation period, regardless of retainer type. Notably, these sEMG changes did not affect the patients' subjective masticatory function.

Occlusal Contact Surface Changes and Occlusal Force Distribution Between Vacuum-Formed Retainers and Other Retainers: A Systematic Review

The present systematic review was done to assess the available literatures on changes in the number of occlusal contacts (NOC), occlusal contact surface areas, and occlusal force distribution (OFD) with vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) or clear overlay retainers during retention and to compare them with other retainers. Six electronic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and Google Scholar) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reporting on occlusal contact changes with VFRs were included. A total of nine articles were included in this review: three RCTs, five prospective controlled trials (PCTs), and one CCT. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS-I tool were used for risk of bias assessment. The three RCTs showed moderate risk of bias, and out of five CCTs, four showed low risk of bias, and one showed moderate risk of bias. One CCT showed a low risk of bias in the ROBINS-I tool. Two out of four studies reported improved occlusal surface area (OSA) with VFRs when assessed at the end of six months and 12 months; one out of four studies reported improved NOC; and one study reported a decrease in OFD anteriorly and an increase in OFD posteriorly after two months of retention. On comparison between the groups, the other retainer groups showed more NOCs compared to VFRs. The limited available evidence suggests an increase in OSA and no change in NOCs and OFD with VFRs during retention. No significant differences between VFRs and other retainers for OSA and OFD were noted, and more NOCs were noted for other retainer groups.

An In Vivo Study Using T-scan III Occlusal Analysis System: Does the Extraction Pattern Affect the Final Occlusion in Orthodontics?

BACKGROUND

The assessment of an orthodontic patient's occlusion throughout the treatment and after debonding permits the orthodontist to improve functional occlusion through interventional tooth movements, thus rendering the overall treatment more efficient in terms of stability and masticatory efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of four first premolar extractions during orthodontic treatment on the distribution of bite force using the T-scan III system (Tekscan Inc., Boston, MA).

OBJECTIVE

We aim to evaluate the effect of four first premolar extractions during orthodontic treatment on bite force distribution.

METHODS

Ten patients (mean age: 16 ± 2.72 years), who would be treated orthodontically with four first premolar extractions to treat their teeth crowding, were selected for this study. The T-scan III system was utilized to measure the occlusal bite force of the patients before and after treatment, and the findings were compared.

RESULTS

There was a non-statistically significant decrease in the occlusal bite force's mean in the arch's anterior segment from 24.45% (± 8.50%) to 14.25% (± 12.93%) after the orthodontic treatment. A non-statistically significant increase in the occlusal bite force in the posterior right segment of the arch from 37.64% (± 18.13%) to 41.65% (± 11.52%) was found after the treatment. The occlusal bite force in the posterior left segment of the arch increased insignificantly from 30.53% (± 20.00%) to 43.95% (± 13.22%). There was an even distribution of bite force on both sides of the arch by the end of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic treatment helps to achieve a functional occlusal balance by assisting in the uniform distribution of biting force on both sides of the arch. There was no statistically significant change in the distribution of bite force recordings collected before and after orthodontic treatment, indicating that the removal of the four first premolar teeth does not impact the functional aspect of occlusion. The T-scan III system serves as an essential guide during orthodontic treatment to monitor occlusal changes.

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.

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.