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

Have orthodontists changed their retention and follow-up protocols due to contemporary orthodontics? An online survey

Background

With advancements in orthodontic technology, treatment durations have shortened, often concluding at earlier ages. This shift prompts scrutiny of contemporary retention and post-treatment protocols. The study aimed to assess current professional preferences, compare them against patient age and treatment duration, and investigate the potential impacts of reduced treatment times on professional protocols, particularly when treatment concludes before pubertal growth.

Methods

A questionnaire comprising 12 multiple-choice questions focused on active treatment and retention phases was developed using an online survey platform. It was distributed to licensed orthodontists engaged in patient treatment. Bivariate analysis was conducted using ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test, with pairwise comparisons facilitated by the Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner method.

Results

Of 743 respondents, representing a 32% response rate, approximately 70% reported initiating treatment with fixed appliances in pre-pubertal patients. The most prevalent treatment combination involved commencing treatment during early permanent dentition and lasting between 12 to 24 months, resulting in treatment completion before full growth maturation. No discernible individualization was observed in retention protocols or post-retention follow-ups. Traditional retainer prescription post-orthodontic therapy was unanimous among respondents. Notably, experienced orthodontists tended to prefer regular patient visits for follow-up, while less experienced counterparts discharged patients after 12 months.

Conclusion

Contemporary orthodontic treatments are characterized by shorter durations, yet orthodontists have not adopted retention and post-treatment follow-up practices accordingly. There is a pressing need for evidence-based guidelines to develop protocols tailored to the shorter treatment durations and the increasing prevalence of younger patients completing treatment.

CAD/CAM-BASED FIXED LINGUAL ORTHODONTIC RETAINERS MAY BE AS EFFECTIVE AS CONVENTIONAL FIXED RETAINERS

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Bardideh E, Ghorbani M, Shafaee H, Saeedi P, Younessian F. A comparison of CAD/CAM- based fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2023 Sep 18;45(5):545-557. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjad033. PMID: 37471113.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

The study was not funded.

TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN

Systematic review with network meta-analysis.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Three-dimensional analysis of posttreatment tooth movements despite bonded retainers: part II-lower jaw

PURPOSE

Complications of bonded lingual retainers in terms of unexpected tooth movements have been reported with increasing frequency during the last decade, but the vast majority of the literature comprises case reports. The purpose of the present retrospective case-control study was to analyze the amount and direction of unwanted tooth movements despite lower bonded retainers, to analyze possible predisposing pretreatment- and treatment-related factors, and to seek for movement thresholds which could enhance the rapid and objective identification of critical cases.

METHODS

Plaster casts of 1026 patients who completed orthodontic treatment and a subsequent retention phase of 2 years were screened for unintentional tooth movements. The study group comprised 39 patients with tooth movements in the lower jaw, while 39 randomly selected patients without visible tooth movements served as the control group. For all patients, plaster casts after debonding of multibracket appliances (T1) and after supervised retention (T2) were digitized, and a three-dimensional (3D) digital superimposition based on the best fit of premolars and molars was undertaken. Thereafter, translational as well as rotational movements were measured in all three planes of space. Pretreatment- and treatment-related factors of the study and control groups were compared. A severity classification based on rotational movement thresholds was applied to seek a critical amount of translational movements.

RESULTS

The mean translational movements ranged between 0 and 0.4 mm and the average rotational movements between 0 and 1.6°. Large individual movements up to 1.9 mm translation and 16° rotation were seen. A twist-effect with opposite movements of the canines along the Y‑axis could be confirmed. Compared to the control group, patients of the study group had a smaller intercanine distance at all timepoints. In addition, study group patients presented a slightly larger intercanine expansion during treatment and were more often affected by retainer bonding site detachments. Applying the severity classification based on rotational thresholds, translational movements of 0.5-1.0 mm along the X‑ and Y‑axis could serve as a critical threshold. It can be assumed that extrusive translational movements along the Z‑axis seem to be of specific nature and perhaps do not reflect a retainer complication in terms of unwanted tooth movements.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a larger intercanine distance after active treatment and those with more frequent retainer bonding site detachments could be at higher risk for unwanted tooth movements during fixed retention. Sagittal and transverse movements of 0.5-1.0 mm should sensitize the practitioner for further measures.

Assessment of the unwanted tooth movement associated with an extended maxillary fixed retainer (3D analysis)

BACKGROUND

Posttreatment changes after orthodontic treatment are challenging. One of the main reasons for such a phenomenon is the lack of patient compliance with removable retainers especially in the maxillary arch, due to palatal coverage, deterioration of speech, decreased masticatory efficiency, and loss of retainers. Fixed retainers have been introduced to overcome patient compliance and provide longer stable results. However, teeth still show movements when a six-unit fixed retainer is in place. Thus, in this study, an eight-unit fixed retainer was evaluated in an attempt to eliminate unwanted movements. THE AIM OF THIS RESEARCH: was to assess short-term positional changes associated with an eight-unit extended maxillary fixed retainer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-arm clinical trial was conducted to address the aim of the study. This research was approved by the institutional review board of the Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University (IORG:0008839, No-0479-8/2022). The registration date of this study was 5/06/2023. Twenty-eight patients (19.8 ± 4.5 years) who had finished the active orthodontic phase and started retention had an eight-unit extended maxillary fixed retainer that was bonded to the palatal surface of the maxillary incisors, canines, and the first premolars or the second premolars. Pre-retention and one-year post-retention intra-oral scans were made to produce STL files that were superimposed to determine the amount of tooth change. Additionally, analysis of digital casts and lateral cephalometric radiographs was performed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant changes in all planes and the rotation of teeth after one year of retention were found. The upper right lateral incisor exhibited the most evident change in the vertical plane, while the upper right central incisor exhibited the greatest change overall. Minimal changes in the cast measurements were observed. Lateral cephalometric measurements showed minimal changes after one year of retention, and these changes were not statistically significant except in the interincisal angle and the angle between the upper incisor and the line connecting the A-point to the pogonion.

CONCLUSION

Increasing the extension of maxillary fixed retainers did not eliminate unwanted tooth movement in the first year of retention.

Comparison of speech changes caused by four different orthodontic retainers: a crossover randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the influence of four different maxillary removable orthodontic retainers on speech.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eligibility criteria for sample selection were: 20-40-year subjects with acceptable occlusion, native speakers of Portuguese. The volunteers (n=21) were divided in four groups randomized with a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio. The four groups used, in random order, the four types of retainers full-time for 21 days each, with a washout period of 7-days. The removable maxillary retainers were: conventional wraparound, wraparound with an anterior hole, U-shaped wraparound, and thermoplastic retainer. Three volunteers were excluded. The final sample comprised 18 subjects (11 male; 7 female) with mean age of 27.08 years (SD=4.65). The speech evaluation was performed in vocal excerpts recordings made before, immediately after, and 21 days after the installation of each retainer, with auditory-perceptual and acoustic analysis of formant frequencies F1 and F2 of the vowels. Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman with Tukey tests were used for statistical comparison.

RESULTS

Speech changes increased immediately after conventional wraparound and thermoplastic retainer installation, and reduced after 21 days, but not to normal levels. However, this increase was statistically significant only for the wraparound with anterior hole and the thermoplastic retainer. Formant frequencies of vowels were altered at initial time, and the changes remained in conventional, U-shaped and thermoplastic appliances after three weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The thermoplastic retainer was more harmful to the speech than wraparound appliances. The conventional and U-shaped retainers interfered less in speech. The three-week period was not sufficient for speech adaptation.

The Common Retention Practices Among Orthodontists from Different Countries

Objective

To investigate the most common retention practices, factors influencing the retention protocol, and the differences among orthodontists regarding retention practices.

Methods

An online validated questionnaire was anonymously sent to 3,000 orthodontic residents and clinicians. The survey consisted of 19 questions regarding the participants' demographics, prescribed retention appliances, factors affecting retention appliance choices, and adjunctive retention procedures. Descriptive statistics, Chi2 and Kendall's Tau-b tests were applied.

Results

Five hundred fifty-five orthodontic residents and clinicians, 53.3% males and 46.7% females, completed the survey, indicating a response rate of 18.5%. Although participants' demographics, type of treatment and pre-treatment malocclusion influence the choice of retention protocols, thermoplastic retainers (TR) were the most popular retention regime for the maxillary arch for both adults (47.4%) and adolescents (42.3%). Bonded retainers (BR) were the favored option for the mandibular arch (44.9% of adults and 40.7% of adolescents). The degree of arch expansion (64.1%) and the degree of interdigitation (50.1%) after treatment were the most influential factors for the choice of the preferred type of retainers by the respondents. 68.6% of the participants thought professional retention guidelines would be useful.

Conclusion

Thermoplastic retainers were the most common retention appliances for adults and adolescents in the maxilla. At the same time, BR was the most favored retainer in the mandibular arch, with clinical experience, practice setting, and malocclusion- and treatment-related factors influencing the type of the chosen appliance. The demographic differences and the uneven participation in the survey need to be considered while interpreting the findings of this study.

Orthodontic retention: Rationale and periodontal implications

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

Influence of fixed orthodontic steel retainers on gingival health and recessions of mandibular anterior teeth in an intact periodontium - a randomized, clinical controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this randomized clinical controlled trial was to evaluate the influence of fixed orthodontic steel retainers on gingival health and recessions of mandibular anterior teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After end of the orthodontic treatment, patients were randomly assigned into the test (fixed steel retainer) or control group (modified removable vacuum-formed retainer). Periodontal parameters (periodontal probing depth: PPD; recession: REC; bleeding on probing: BOP) as well as plaque and gingival index were assessed on mandibular anterior teeth directly before attaching/handing over the retainer (baseline: BL), 6 and 12 months after orthodontic treatment.

RESULTS

37 patients (test: n = 15, mean age: 16.1±4.2 years; control: n = 17, mean age: 17.1±5.4 years) completed the study. REC and PPD failed to show significant pairwise differences. The number of patients showing gingival health in the area of the mandibular anterior teeth (test: BL n = 10, 6 months n = 9, 12 months n = 11; control: BL n = 10, 6 months n = 16, 12 months n = 15) revealed a significant difference for the intra-group comparison between BL and 6 months in the control group (p = 0.043). The inter-group comparisons failed to show significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Young orthodontically treated patients with fixed steel retainers show in 73.3% healthy gingival conditions after one year which are comparable to the control group (88.2%). Gingival recessions were in a clinically non-relevant range at any time of the examination.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

DRKS00016710.

Optical effects of graphene addition on adhesives for orthodontic lingual retainers

The objective of this study was to determine the effects on the colour of adding increasing concentrations of graphene to orthodontic fixed retainer adhesives and to evaluate changes in optical transmission during light curing and the resultant degree of conversion. Two different types of adhesives commonly used for fixed retainers were investigated: A packable composite (Transbond) and a flowable composite (Transbond Supreme). Graphene was added to the adhesives in three different concentrations (0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 wt%). Adhesives without graphene addition were set as control groups. A Minolta colourimeter was used to measure the colour and translucency parameters. Irradiance transmitted during curing was quantified using MARC Light Collector. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy was used to record degree of conversion. Data were statistically analysed with the Student's t-test and one-way ANOVA with Tukey's tests (α = 0.05). The findings showed that incorporating graphene darkened the adhesive colour significantly and reduced translucency. As the graphene concentration reached 0.1 wt%, samples became opaque; yet, no adverse effect on degree of conversion was observed. The addition of graphene reduces optical transmission of lingual retainer adhesives; the effect increases with graphene concentration.

Fixed orthodontic appliances and adolescents' peer relations in school : A social network analysis using cross-sectional survey data

PURPOSE

Studies from the 1970s and 1980s, but also recent investigations on social media suggest that wearing a fixed orthodontic appliance can be a cause of bullying and social exclusion. With the greater uptake of orthodontic treatment in recent decades, it can be assumed that fixed braces are increasingly perceived as normal or even socially desirable. This study investigated how wearing visible fixed braces affects adolescents' social position in their peer networks using cross-sectional survey data.

METHODS

A total of 3002 students in the seventh grade (ages 12/13) at 39 secondary schools were asked about their social relationships in school. These directed network data were used to compare different indegrees (friendship, popularity and victimisation) of students with and without fixed braces. Statistical analyses were performed using ordinary least squares multiple regression models with school cohort fixed effects.

RESULTS

In all, 19% of the surveyed students indicated that they wear visible fixed braces. Girls with fixed braces were slightly more likely to be nominated for friendship and popularity and slightly less likely to be nominated for victimisation than girls without fixed braces (p < 0.05). These associations also remained stable when controlling for socioeconomic differences. Among boys, all observed associations were statistically insignificant.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that wearing fixed braces in adolescence is socially sanctioned by peers. Rather, female students with fixed braces even tend to hold a slightly more favourable position in their peer networks than girls without braces do. These analyses exemplify how network-analytic approaches can be successfully applied in interdisciplinary research at the intersection of sociology, epidemiology and medicine.

Blanket or tailored prescription of retainers in orthodontics: a questionnaire-based study

OBJECTIVE

To explore retainer protocols and how they are influenced by orthodontic presentation and the nature of occlusal correction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prepiloted 45-item online questionnaire targeting orthodontists was developed. The questionnaire covered clinical preferences in terms of retainer type, fabrication, and follow-up during retention; the clinical indications for adjunctive surgical procedures; and the use of active designs to mitigate relapse in specific malocclusions.

RESULTS

A total of 206 responses were obtained. The majority of the respondents prescribed maxillary removable and mandibular fixed retainers, with almost half (49.1%) reviewing patients for more than 1 year primarily in person (95.1%). The majority prescribed vacuum-formed (69.6%) 1-mm-thick (44.3%) retainers. Only 37.3% were aware of the type of material used, with polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolymer, followed by polypropylene, being the most common. Hawley retainers were preferred following nonsurgical maxillary expansion and with suboptimal interdigitation. A preference for clear retainers and/or fixed retainers was found in open-bite cases and deep-bite cases. Supracrestal fiberotomy was prescribed commonly (61.1%) for rotations greater than 90°. No retainer was rarely prescribed except after the correction of an anterior crossbite.

CONCLUSIONS

Blanket prescription of orthodontic retention is common, with limited awareness of clear plastic retainer materials. Future trials evaluating the effectiveness of approaches for retainer prescription based on the presenting malocclusion would be timely.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

TRIAL DESIGN

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

METHODS

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

BLINDING

The digital casts were blinded for the outcome assessor.

RESULTS

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

HARMS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.com (NCT04616755).

Is wear time of Hawley retainers measured with microsensors related to mandibular arch stability?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to show a possible correlation between the mean wear time of Hawley retainers and long-term mandibular arch stability as assessed via wear time analysis with microsensors.

METHODS

This longitudinal retrospective study comprised 47 subjects (mean age 16.30 ± 1.06 years) having been treated with a nonextraction protocol and presenting moderate crowding at pretreatment. For retention, all patients were instructed to use a mandibular Hawley retainer for 12 months, and wear time was documented every 3 months during a posttreatment period of 6 months using TheraMon software. These individuals were divided into two groups. Those who adhered to a wear time equal to or more than 12 h/day (group 1A; N = 17) and those who complied for less than 12 h/day (group 2A; N = 30) were compared with respect to changes of the mandibular arch during the first 6 months of retention. Furthermore, a subgroup of 28 patients who completed a 12-month follow-up period were again divided into two groups: the individuals in group 1B (N = 12) adhered to a wear time equal to or more than 8 h/day, while those in group 2B (N = 16) complied for less than 8 h/day. Little's Irregularity Index, intercanine and intermolar widths, arch length, overjet, and overbite were measured on mandibular models taken at pretreatment (T0) and posttreatment (T1), as well as 6 months (T2) and 12 months (T3) after debonding. Pearson correlation test, independent samples t‑test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical evaluation.

RESULTS

From T1 to T2, group 1A and group 2A showed a significant relapse in intermolar width with a difference in the median value of 0.38 mm (p = 0.019). At the complete 12-month follow-up, the increase in Little's irregularity score was significantly greater in group 2B (2.54 ± 1.29 mm) than in group 1B (1.32 ± 1.03 mm; p = 0.012). The established wear time measurements showed significant negative correlations with the Little's irregularity score and overjet changes between T1 and T3 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results emphasized that the use of a retainer should not fall below a level of at least 8 h/day.

The dark side of fixed retainers: Case series

This article focuses on on the presentation and management 9 adult patients who experienced complications because of their maxillary or mandibular fixed retainers 5-33 years after orthodontic treatment. Such complications include the development of an anterior crossbite, open bite, incisal cant, and twist- and x-effects. The detrimental effects on periodontal health were highlighted, especially in the mandibular canines. A range of fixed retainer types was identified, including flexible spiral wire bonded to 4 maxillary or 6 mandibular anterior teeth, rigid wire bonded to mandibular canines only and fiber-reinforced composite fixed retainer. Orthodontic retreatment was necessary in all patients using fixed appliances or clear aligners. Radiographic findings from cone-beam computed tomography or orthopantomogram before and after retreatment are presented when available. Despite the improvement of teeth position clinically, the cone-beam computed tomography scans taken directly after the completion of orthodontic retreatment did not show notable improvement with regards to root proximity to the cortical plates. The prevention of further complications was highlighted, including the use of dual retention, remote monitoring, frequent follow-up appointments and the importance of developing clear guidelines for monitoring patients in retention for treating clinicians and general dentists to promote early detection of adverse changes.

Assessment of the effectiveness of two different orthodontic retention protocols

INTRODUCTION

The main goal of orthodontic retention is to keep the teeth in their corrected positions. Fixed or removable retainers are the most common types of retainers used during the retention phase. For the maxilla, various types of retainers have been described, including the vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers. Fixed retainers are used for the lower jaw.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Justification of use of fixed retainers based on the analysis of size of the incisor and canine crowns

Anatomical features of the teeth should be accounted for dental treatment plans. The need for constant monitoring of changes in the dentition system determines the relevance of this research. The study aimed to establish the size of anterior teeth with the help of odontometry. We made bi-layer single stage impressions and cast diagnostic models of the anterior teeth of 50 male and 50 female participants aged 18–24 years. The absolute sizes of crowns of incisors and canines were established. To assess the reduction of lateral incisors, we calculated the interincisor index (Ii) of teeth 22 and 21; sexual dimorphism was determined using the Garn–Lewis formula. It was discovered that there are no differences in the mesiodistal widths of crowns of contralateral teeth on the right and left sides (p > 0.05). The mesiodistal width of crowns of anterior teeth decreases (significant changes) in the following order: maxillary central incisors → maxillary canines → mandibular canines and maxillary lateral incisors → mandibular lateral incisors → mandibular central incisors. The degree of reduction of lateral incisors is low (Ii = 74.9) and more prominent in males than in females. In the examined patients, the greatest mean length of crowns of anterior teeth is that of upper central incisors and lower canines, while upper canines are shorter in length and upper lateral incisors, lower central and lateral incisors have the shortest mean crown length. Males have longer (mean length) crowns of lower canines, upper incisors and canines than females, the difference being significant (p < 0.001). The parameters of the crowns determined in this study showed that they have sufficient height and mesiodistal width, which, together with the low degree of reduction of the lateral incisors, justifies the possibility of direct fabrication of orthodontic fixed retainers. The data can also be used at the stage of dental treatment planning.

Survival and failure rate of lower lingual bonded retainers: a retrospective cohort evaluation

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the survival rates for lower lingual retainers (LLRs) and to establish a correlation between patients' treatment-related factors (age, sex, malocclusion, appliance used for treatment, teeth bonded, retention protocols) to the survival of LLRs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 765 subjects [474 females and 291 males: mean age = 24.29 ± 10.67 years] between 2013 and 2022 were included. A customized data collection form was utilized to gather the data from the electronic health record (EHR) of subjects. Patient-related factors, crowding or spacing, deep bite or open bite and duration of treatment were extracted from patients' files. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used for the survival function, whereas Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to associate risk factors with retainer survival.

RESULTS

328 (42.9%) subjects had their LLRs failed, and the survival period was on average 17.37 ± 22.85 months. On the other hand, the follow-up period for the retainers that did not fail was on average 47.19 ± 23.66 months. 192 (28.3%) subjects had segment failure (retainer detached from 3 teeth or less), while 51 (7.5%) subjects had failures in more than 3 teeth (complete). None of the evaluated clinical variables were significantly associated with LLRs failure except for the bite category (P = .013) and the appliance used for treatment (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Success rate for LLRs was 57.1% over 47.19 months, failure rate was 42.9% over 17.37 months. The presence of deep bite and treatment with aligners were significantly associated with increased failure rate.

Orthodontic Retention-Protocols and Materials-A Questionnaire Pilot Study among Polish Practitioners

The aim of the study was to analyze retention protocols and materials for fixed retainers used by clinicians providing orthodontic treatment in Poland. The survey was carried out from February to April 2021. The questionnaire was designed using the Google Forms tool. After validation, the questionnaire was delivered to verified active orthodontists gathered in a closed social media group of 615 members. Finally, 104 answers were received. Answers to individual questions were provided in percentages and tabularized. A chi-squared test of proportion was used to compare: the proportion of clinicians using retainers of different characteristics and the proportions of clinicians indicating the superiority of a given clinical solution. Rectangular steel braided wire was rated as most reliable. However, doctors who declared to use gold chain were mostly solely using this type of wire. Multistranded round wire was rated the worst. Fiber-reinforced composite was mainly used in periodontal patients. The protocols used by Polish orthodontic practitioners relied on double long-term retention with regular follow-up. The most popular material was stainless steel braided rectangular wire bonded with a flowable composite. Most clinicians believed they could maintain the treatment results, but they declared that patients’ cooperation was a challenge.

Orthodontist and periodontist's knowledge, attitudes and aspects of clinical practice, regarding fixed lower orthodontic retainers

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and aspects of the clinical practice of orthodontists and periodontists, regarding lower fixed orthodontic retainers.

METHODS

The orthodontists (n=502) and periodontists (n=269) who participated in this cross-sectional observational study received, via e-mail, questions related to the type of lower fixed retainer, dental biofilm accumulation, oral hygiene, and potential periodontal changes. The data were subjected to chi-square and Fisher's exact tests, at 5% significance level.

RESULTS

Both orthodontists (72.3%) and periodontists (58.7%) reported that hygienic retainers accumulate more dental biofilm (p< 0.05), and 64.1% of orthodontists and 58.7% of periodontists considered that modified retainers may lead to periodontal changes (p< 0.05). There was no significant difference between the dental specialties, regarding the type of lower fixed retainer considered the easiest for the patient to perform hygiene (p> 0.05), whereas 48.6% of professionals chose the modified type.

CONCLUSION

The modified retainer accumulates a greater amount of dental biofilm and, in the perception of orthodontists and periodontists, it may cause periodontal changes.

A Survey of Retention Practices and Protocols Followed Among Orthodontists in India

Background:

There are different types of retention protocols and retainers prescribed by the orthodontists across the globe.

Aim:

The study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the retention practices followed by the orthodontists in India.

Materials and Methods:

A questionnaire link with a set of 29 questions was generated using the Google Forms App. The questions related to the basic demographic details followed by retention procedures in maxilla and mandible as related to the type of retainer, duration of wear, retention check-ups, and adjunctive procedures being followed. The Google forms were mailed to 1147 registered life members of the Indian Orthodontic Society.

Results:

The overall response rate was 20.1%. On receiving of the completed questionnaires, the data were statistically analyzed. Dual mode of retention, fixed retainers with removable thermoplastic resin (TR)/vacuum formed retainers (VFR) (24%) were the common type of retention in maxilla whereas the fixed bonded retainer (44.5%) was more commonly used in mandible. Full time wear of maxillary retainer was recommended by 85.2% of the respondents. The recommended duration of the fixed retainer is for 2–5 years (41.9%).

Conclusion:

A trend towards more dual retention instead of solitary removable or solitary fixed retention, more VFR instead of Hawley-type retainers has been demonstrated in the survey.

The effect of different bonded retainer wires on tooth mobility immediately after orthodontic treatment

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the immediate influence of four commonly used retainer wires on tooth mobility following orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty patients after orthodontic treatment were assigned to four study groups (n = 20 in each group). Groups were provided with directly bonded fixed retainers-0.0150″ (group A), 0.0175″ (group B), 0.016 × 0.022″ (group C), and 0.0215″ (group D). Tooth mobility was measured using the Periotest device at two times-after removal of fixed appliance (T1) and after bonding of the retainer (T2). Values of tooth mobility, 'Periotest values', were analysed between groups and compared with the physiologic tooth mobility in a control group of untreated patients (n = 65). Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U, Dunn's test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Tooth mobility after orthodontic treatment was significantly increased. While canines remained within normal range of tooth mobility, values for incisors increased on average to the first degree of tooth mobility (slight mobility). Logistic regression analysis identified age as a significant predictor for increased tooth mobility (P = 0.032) with odds ratio 1.065 (95% CI 1.005-1.128), with mobility increasing with age. After bonding of the retainer in all four groups, the tooth mobility was reduced to values which were not significantly different form normal physiological values found in the control group (P > 0.05). There were no differences in the amount of change or in tooth mobility values at T2 between the different types of bonded retainers.

LIMITATIONS

Age of subjects in the control group was significantly higher than that in the study groups. An alternation method was used instead of randomization to distribute the four different types of retainers.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the retainer wires were able to successfully reduce the increased tooth mobility caused by orthodontic treatment to normal levels. The values of tooth mobility after placement of retainers were within the range of physiologic tooth mobility.

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.

Fixed retention: pitfalls and complications

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

How do general dental practitioners perceive and deal with orthodontic bonded retainers?

INTRODUCTION

Long-term follow-up and management of orthodontic bonded retainers require a strong collaboration between orthodontists and general dental practitioners (GDPs). This study aimed to evaluate if Eastern French GDPs were aware of bonded retainers' complications and side effects and if they were willing to take part in their long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Two-hundred and eighteen randomly selected GDPs were invited to answer an online questionnaire. The initial sections covered their experience and management with bonded retainers. In the final sections, GDPs were asked their opinion on the responsibility for long-term follow-up of patients wearing fixed retainers and on the mutual communication between orthodontists and GDPs. Statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Response rate was 32.6% (n = 71). The vast majority of GDPs were familiar with loose retainers, but only 45.2% were willing to repair them. Respondents offering orthodontic services on a regular basis were more likely to insert retainers and repair loose or broken retainers (P < 0.001). Approximately 18.6% of GDPs were aware of third-order side effects encountered with unintentionally active retainers bonded to all 6 anterior teeth. For 88.8% of GDPs, permanent retention was justified, whereas 90% of the dentists refused to be responsible for long-term supervision of fixed retainers. In addition, 67.1% were interested in further training on orthodontic retention, and 92.9% would appreciate clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge about the harmful side effects of bonded retainers was evaluated as insufficient among surveyed GDPs. Long-term follow-up of patients wearing bonded retainers raises issues that should be addressed globally by enhancing mutual communication, practitioners' education, and patients' involvement.

Retention Protocols and Factors Affecting Retainer Choice among Iraqi Orthodontists

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Background

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Occlusal contact area changes with different retention protocols: 1-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occlusal contact area and cast-radiograph evaluation (CRE) score changes in patients with 3 different retention protocols after a 1-year retention period.

METHODS

A total of 90 patients with acceptable final occlusion according to American Board of Orthodontics CRE were equally divided into 3 groups according to the retention protocol: upper bonded retainer and lower Essix or bonded retainer (Essix group); upper bonded retainer and Hawley or lower bonded retainer (Hawley group); and upper bonded retainer and lower bonded retainer (bonded retainer group). Digital models were used to assess occlusal contact area changes after a 1-year retention period. The follow-up occlusion models were assessed with the American Board of Orthodontics CRE.

RESULTS

Occlusal contact areas increased significantly in the Hawley and bonded retainer groups for all teeth except incisors. The bonded retainer group showed the greatest amount of settling, but differences with the Hawley group were not statistically significant. However, statistically significant decreases in occlusal contact areas were recorded for the Essix group except for incisors. A decrease of CRE scores was seen in the Hawley group, whereas a statistically significant increase was recorded in the Essix group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both Hawley and bonded retainers allowed settling of the occlusion during the retention phase, whereas the Essix retainer did not allow relative vertical movement of the posterior teeth. The Hawley group showed improvement in the total CRE score, whereas the Essix group showed worsening.

ORTHODONTIST CLINICAL EXPERIENCE AND CLINICAL SITUATION SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE THE RETENTION PROTOCOL - A SURVEY FROM CROATIA

The aim was to assess the views and practice of Croatian orthodontists concerning retention protocols. A total of 150 questionnaire copies were distributed, of which 92 were validly completed. The survey included sociodemographic characteristics, practices of informing patients about retention options, commonly used appliances, and reasons for choosing a particular type of retention and treatment duration. Orthodontists informed patients about retention mostly verbally, the retention period was 3-5 years, the choice of method depended on the malocclusion (76%), and the protocol was influenced by clinical experience of the orthodontist (39%). The most commonly used appliance in the maxilla was the vacuum-formed retainer (52%), whereas a combination of fixed and removable retainers was most common in the mandible (34%). Modus of acquiring knowledge, biological reasons (malocclusion type, oral health, treatment outcome, and growth) and the patient’s wishes were not a predictor of retention duration or recall frequency. With an increase in orthodontic experience, the duration of retention decreased and orthodontists were more likely to change the duration of retention (p=0.001), as well as the type of retention appliance (p<0.001). In conclusion, retention protocols among Croatian orthodontists were influenced mostly by their clinical experience and clinical situation.

Post-orthodontic retention: how much do people deciding on a future orthodontic treatment know and what do they expect? A questionnaire-based survey

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional study aimed to explore the level of knowledge and expectations people deciding on a future orthodontic treatment have about post-orthodontic retention and to investigate the influence of sociocultural characteristics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 227 consecutive people involved as legal decision maker (as patient, parent, or legal guardian) for a prospective orthodontic treatment (mean age 37.1 years; 37.3 per cent male) received before their first appointment a questionnaire to assess their knowledge and expectations about post-orthodontic retention. Data were analysed descriptively, whereas predictors were identified with logistic regressions at P value of less than or equal to 0.05.

RESULTS

Among the 220 responders, 46.3 per cent (n = 99) knew that retention appliances are used after orthodontic treatment and 52.8 per cent (n = 113) believed perfect results can guarantee stability, whereas at the same time, 77.8 per cent (n = 168) knew that teeth can move on their own without any orthodontic appliances. The majority considered stability of the orthodontic result important or extremely important (94.5 per cent; n = 206), preferred bonded over removable retainers (67.2 per cent; n = 133), believed the orthodontist to be primarily responsible for a stable result (73.2 per cent; n = 158), and found it appropriate to charge for recall visits (72.9 per cent; n = 153). Participants' gender, age, education, nationality, and past orthodontic experiences within the close family significantly influenced answers.

LIMITATIONS

The setting of a single-centred survey conducted in one university moderates the generalizability of the portrayed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although stability of orthodontic treatment results is very important to people deciding about a prospective orthodontic treatment, knowledge regarding the need for post-orthodontic retention varies and may at times be contradictious. Sociocultural factors seem to influence the level of knowledge and the expectations on post-orthodontic retention.

Hawley retainer and lichenoid reaction: a rare case report

BACKGROUND

Oral lichenoid reaction (OLR) is a type IV cell-mediated immune response in the oral cavity. There is an established relationship between various dental materials and OLR, but few cases reports reported the occurrence of a lichenoid reaction in association with the use of a Hawley retainer.

CASE PRESENTATION

A female patient (twenty years of age) has been complaining of a reddish painful area on the tongue, which started one year ago and has been increasing in size over time. The patient completed orthodontic treatment two years ago and has been using a Hawley retainer for orthodontic retention since then. After performing histological analysis and patch test, the lesion was diagnosed as a lichenoid reaction to the Hawley retainer. Topical corticosteroids were prescribed, and the patient was asked to stop using the retainer and followed for six months.

CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to diagnose lichenoid lesions and even more challenging to differentiate between OLP and OLR, therefore it is essential to do a full intraoral and extraoral examination. OLL can occur in association with Hawley retainer, which we believe could be because it is made of an acrylic based material. Generally, OLL resolves after removal of the cause.

[Expression of myofibroblast in gingival after orthodontic loading]

OBJECTIVE

To examine the expression of myofibroblast in gingival after orthodontic loading.

METHODS

Eight patients were selected as experimental group and treated with orthodontic force for 4 months. Ten patients were selected as the control group, were not loaded. The gingival protein expressions of collagen typeⅠ, collagen type Ⅲ, α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) were evaluated by immunohistochemistry method.

RESULTS

Positive expressions of collagen typeⅠ, collagen type Ⅲ were founded, while no positive staining for α-SMA in the gingival tissue except vascular epithelium before loading. In experimental group, collagen type I and collagen type Ⅲ were increased after orthodontic loading (P<0.05), the expression of α-SMA was detected and statistically significant (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The myofibroblast exists in gingival tissue after orthodontic loading, and it may be concerned with orthodontic teeth relapse.

Users' perceptions and preferences towards maxillary removable orthodontic retainers: a crossover randomized clinical trial

The aim of this study was to assess, correlate, and compare users' perceptions and preference related to maxillary removable retainers. Volunteers were recruited to use four retainer types: conventional wrap-around (CWA), wrap-around with an anterior opening (OWA), "U" wrap-around (UWA), and clear thermoplastic retainer (CT). The main outcomes were the volunteers' perceptions, evaluated with a 100-mm visual analogue scale, and their preferred retainer. The retainers were used for 21 days each (washout intervals of 7 days). Nineteen volunteers (27 ± 4.53 years) were randomly divided into four groups that used the four retainers, but with a different sequence. Perceptions were evaluated immediately after the use of each retainer and the preference at the end of the research. Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman tests with post-hoc Tukey's test (intergroup comparisons), and Pearson and Spearman analyses (correlations between perceptions) were applied. The WA retainers did not significantly differ among themselves. The CT was rated significantly worse in speech (p ≤ 0.001), discomfort (p < 0.001), and occlusal interference (p < 0.001), and did not significantly differ from the others in esthetics. Users preferred significant more the WA retainers in comparison with the CT retainers. The occlusal interference caused by the CT was positively correlated to other perceptions, such as changes in speech and discomfort. WA retainers presented similar preference and perceptions, but were significantly better than the CT. The CT occlusal coverage appeared to be the primary cause of its rejection.

Fixed Orthodontic Retainers: A Review

Orthodontic retention is defined as maintaining teeth in optimal aesthetic and functional position after treatment. Despite the necessity of retention phase and the factors influencing the stability of the teeth after orthodontic treatment was discussed by the orthodontist for a long time, it is accepted that a retention phase is essential for stability of orthodontic treatment results nowadays. Therefore, the application of a suitable retention method is important both for prevention of relapse after orthodontic treatment and for increasing patient satisfaction. Removable appliances had been used for many years for retention purposes. Later, fixed retainers were introduced to prevent relapse as having a number of advantages, such as better aesthetics, no need for patient cooperation, effectiveness, and suitability for lifelong retention. However, their need for precise bonding technique, fragility, and tendency to cause periodontal problems by weakening oral hygiene are some of their disadvantages.

Efficacy of the mini tooth positioner in improving orthodontic finishes

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the mini tooth positioner in improving the quality of orthodontic treatment outcomes, as measured by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) cast-radiograph evaluation (CRE).

METHODS

Thirty patients were treated prospectively with a minipositioner for 4-6 weeks immediately after debond. Sixteen patients who had received a maxillary vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) and fixed mandibular canine-to-canine retainer at time of debond were enrolled retrospectively as control subjects. Models from time of debond (T1) were graded with the use of the ABO CRE and compared with models obtained 4-6 weeks after debond (T2) for each group.

RESULTS

For the minipositioner group, the overall CRE score improved significantly by an average of 6.77 points. Significant improvements were noted in the categories of alignment and rotations (-0.68), marginal ridges (-1.40), buccolingual inclination (-0.45), overjet (-0.97), and occlusal contacts (-3.00). For the control group, overall CRE score improved significantly by an average of 1.16 points. Only the categories of overjet (-0.38) and occlusal contacts (-1.22) showed significant improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

The minipositioner is an effective tool in improving the overall finish of orthodontic treatment. In the 4-6 weeks after debond evaluated in this study, the minipositioner significantly outperformed the maxillary VFR/mandibular fixed canine-to-canine retainer in improving final treatment outcomes.

Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULT

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Performance of Hawley-type retainers: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Background

Although post-treatment changes are almost inevitable, and retention has long been recognized as one of the most critical and routine problems faced by orthodontists, there remains a lack of certainty regarding the parameters of any definitive retention protocol following orthodontic treatment.

Objective

To investigate the performance of the Hawley-type retainers.

Search methods

Search without restrictions in 15 databases and hand searching until December 2016.

Selection criteria

Randomized clinical trials comparing the performance of Hawley-type retainers to other removable appliances or comparing different Hawley-type retainers' wearing schedules.

Data collection and analysis

Following study retrieval and selection, data extraction and individual study risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool took place. The overall quality of the available evidence was assessed with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results

Finally, 10 studies were identified involving 854 individuals, followed for up to 1 year after debonding. Eight studies compared subjects using Hawley and clear thermoplastic retainers; another compared Hawley to positioner and, finally, one trial involved individuals allocated to different Hawley appliance wearing schedules. Three studies were considered as being of low, four of unclear, and three of high risk of bias. In general, few differences were observed between the Hawley and other removable retainers regarding outcomes relevant to maxillary and mandibular dental arch measurements, dental arch relationships and occlusal contacts, speech evaluation, patient reported outcomes, adverse effects, and problems related to the appliances, as well as economic evaluation related outcomes. Moreover, no differences were observed between the compared Hawley wearing schedules. Overall, the quality of the available evidence was considered low.

Conclusions

Given the overall quality of the available evidence and the multitude of parameters, which may have affected the results of the included trials, good practice would suggest further research in the respective field in order to increase both the quantity and quality of information available.

Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42015029279).

Funding

No funding was received for the present systematic review.

Orthodontic thermoformed retainers: a two-arm laboratory study into post-fabrication outcomes

BACKGROUND

Retainers are commonly used to maintain post-orthodontic occlusion stability. We aimed to determine post-fabrication thickness and thinning rate of thermoformed retainers.

METHODS

Forty-eight retainers were fabricated from polyethylenterepthalat-glycol copolyester or polypropylene blanks, using vacuum- or pressure-thermoforming. Retainer thickness was measured at multiple locations.

RESULTS

Thinning rate had a broad range: the mid-labial incisor region of 1 mm polyethylenterepthalat-glycol copolyester pressure-thermoformed mandibular retainers had the greatest thinning rate (68.25 ± 8.26%) and smallest mean post-fabrication thickness (0.32 ± 0.08 mm). Polyethylenterepthalat-glycol copolyester retainers were 0.11 mm thinner than polypropylene (P=0.0222), and polypropylene retainers were 0.21 mm thicker, when pressure-thermoformed (P<0.0001). The interaction of manufacturing method and material used, and tooth type, explained over a third of the variability in the post-fabrication thickness of these retainers. Maxillary retainers made from 1 mm blanks were 0.04 mm thicker in the incisor region compared with the molar region (P=0.0492).

CONCLUSIONS

Thermoformed retainers do no thin uniformly against individual teeth and have variable intra- and inter-arch post-fabrication thicknesses. There is no clear benefit in using a specific type of thermoforming machine or material for increasing post-fabrication thickness or reducing thinning rate. Blank thickness and tooth morphology influence these outcomes.

How patient-selected colors for removable appliances are reflected in electronically tracked compliance (wear times and wear behavior)

OBJECTIVES

A broad spectrum of colors for removable appliances, intended to optimize acceptance of treatment and patient cooperation, have been available on the dental market for years. This is the first study to analyze how patient-selected colors are reflected in wear times and wear behavior of removable appliances.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 117 children (55 girls and 62 boys) who were treated with active removable plate or functional appliances. All patients were offered to choose from 11 different colors, which were pooled into six groups (black, blue, green, yellow, pink, red) for analysis, or to combine any two to four colors ("multicolored" group) for their appliances. All appliances featured a built-in microsensor (TheraMon; MC Technology, Hargelsberg, Austria) for objective wear-time tracking. Differences between wear times were analyzed using pairwise t tests and Tukey correction.

RESULTS

The longest median wear times were recorded in the blue and green groups (≈11 h/d) and the shortest ones in the red and pink groups (≈9 h/d), but they were not significantly influenced by the patient-selected colors. The median wear times involved an age-related decrease by 0.56 h/y that was statistically significant ( P = .00005). No gender-specific patterns of wear behavior were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-selected colors for removable appliances can presumably improve acceptance of treatment, but they are not associated with statistically significant improvements in wear time or wear behavior.

A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this study were to evaluate retention procedures and protocols which are used by the orthodontists in Lithuania and to identify commonly used types of dental retainers.

METHODS

One hundred seven questionnaires in total with 28 multiple-choice questions were sent to all members of the Lithuanian Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire was organized into eight sections representing specific information about socio-demographic status of the respondents, selection of a retention system, details of commonly used fixed and removable retainers, the duration of the retention period, supervision of the retainers, instructions for patients, and necessity of common retention guidelines.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 75.7%. All of the respondents prescribed retainers after the orthodontic therapy. More than 40% of the respondents combined fixed and removable retainers in different clinical situations, but the first-choice option after an expansion of the maxillary dental arch was the removable retainer (54.3%); meanwhile, a fixed retainer was used after a correction of any rotations of the mandibular anterior teeth (49.4%). The Hawley retainer was preferred by 90.1% of the respondents for a maxillary dental arch, and 74.1% of them preferred it for a mandibular dental arch. The most preferable fixed retainer was the retainer bonded to all six anterior teeth (in the upper dental arch-by 71.6%; in the lower one-by 80.2%). There was no consensus on the duration of a retention period. Most of the orthodontists checked up retainers three times during the first year (fixed ones-by 42.0%; removable ones-by 30.0%) and once per year after the 1-year retention period (fixed ones-by 44.4%; removable ones-by 40.7%). All orthodontists gave instructions for taking care of an orthodontic retainer. It was observed that the orthodontists with less than 10 years of experience used a protocol based on the skills learned during their postgraduate studies, while orthodontists with more than 10 years of experience used retention procedures based on their orthodontic work practice (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of fixed and removable retainers was the most often used in an orthodontic retention. Evidence-based guidelines are desired for a common retention protocol.

Retention practices and factors affecting retainer choice among orthodontists in Saudi Arabia

Objectives:

To identify the retention protocols practiced by orthodontists in Saudi Arabia, and the factors affecting retainer choice.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study took place between February and March of 2015 at the College of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. A previously tested electronic survey of 34 items was sent to all 1,200 orthodontic members of the Saudi Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire elicited data on the subjects’ demographics, orthodontic treatment practices, retention, and post-retention protocols.

Results:

One hundred and sixty-seven (13.9%) responses were received during the study period. The results showed predominant use of Hawley in the maxillary arch (61.3%), and fixed lingual in the mandibular arch (58.5%). Approximately 90.3% recommended full-time maxillary removable retainer wear. Overall, orthodontists who performed fewer extractions tended to use fixed retainers, and those who performed more extractions used removable retainers (p=0.018). Interproximal enamel reduction was used by 28% of the respondents as an adjunct procedure to enhance retention. Approximately 64% practiced a post-retention phase of retainer wear. Participants who used removable retainers most commonly prescribed lifetime retention.

Conclusion:

Hawley in the maxilla, and fixed lingual in the mandible were the most common retention protocols prescribed. Lifetime retention was the most common choice for participants who used removable retainers, especially when extractions were carried out.