Lingual retainers bonded without liquid resin: A 5-year follow-up study

Effect of self-etch primer application on the bond failure rate of a mandibular bonded lingual retainer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of self-etch primer (SEP) application on the bond failure rate of a mandibular bonded lingual retainer over 24 months.

METHODS

The average age of the 86 individuals included in this study was 17 years 4 months. After the removal of the orthodontic appliances, the lingual retainers, which were made of six-stranded stainless steel wire, were bent and bonded onto the lingual surface of all mandibular anterior teeth. The study was performed using a split-mouth design. In the study group, the SEP was administered to the teeth's lingual surfaces. In the control group, they were etched using 37% phosphoric etchant liquid gel. After etching, the primer was applied. The adhesive resin was applied and the retainer was fitted. The patients were re-evaluated over 24 months. The first bond failures and the amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth were recorded as the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. The chi-square test was used to compare the bond failure rates (P = 0.231) and ARI scores between the groups (P = 0.162). The survival rates of the retainers were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier test (P = 0.237). The significance level was P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The bond failure rates, ARI scores, and survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrated that an SEP can be used successfully in mandibular lingual retainer bonding. In situations where saliva isolation is difficult, bonding a fixed lingual retainer with SEP is recommended.

Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: Comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 5-year follow-up of a single-center randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

REGISTRATION

The trial was not registered.

PROTOCOL

The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

FUNDING

No funding or conflict of interest to be declared.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

PROSPERO

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or photo polymerization over a 2-year period: a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this trial was to compare the survival rates of mandibular lingual retainers bonded with either chemically cured or light-cured adhesive after orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

Patients having undergone orthodontic treatment at a private orthodontic office were randomly allocated to fixed retainers placed with chemically cured composite or light-cured composite. Eligibility criteria included no active caries, restorations, or fractures on the mandibular anterior teeth, and adequate oral hygiene. The main outcome was any type of first-time lingual retainer breakage; pattern of failure (adapted adhesive remnant index scores) was a secondary outcome. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of 20 patients with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Patients were reviewed at 1, 3, and 6 months and then every 6 months after placement of the retainer until completion of the study. Data were analyzed using survival analysis including Cox regression; sensitivity analysis was carried out after data imputation for subjects lost to follow-up.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty patients (median age, 16 years; interquartile range, 2; range, 12-47 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either chemical or light curing. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, the median follow-up period was 2.19 years (range, 0.003-3.64 years), and 16 patients were lost to follow-up. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, 47 of 110 (42.7%) and 55 of 110 (50.0%) retainers had some type of failure with chemically cured and light-cured adhesive, respectively (log-rank test, P = 0.35). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.70; P = 0.47). There was weak evidence that age is a significant predictor for lingual retainer failures (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = 0.08). Adhesive remnant index scoring was possible for only 66 of the 102 (64.7%) failures and did not differ between composites (Fisher exact test, P = 0.16). No serious harm was observed other than gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicated no evidence that survival of mandibular lingual retainers differs between chemically and light-cured adhesives. The overall failure rate was 46.4%; however, this included any type of failure, which may have exaggerated the overall failure rate.