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.

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.

Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review

The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may vary in duration. This review aims to present and comment on the available means of retention. The ever-popular, passive Hawley-like removable appliances are credible in maintaining the desired occlusion. Modifications are the removable appliance Wrap Around, having the labial archwire extending to the premolars; the translucent retainer, Astics, a unique aesthetic Hawley-type device; and the reinforced removable retainer, which features a metallic grid reinforcing the acrylic base. Vacuum-formed retainers are easy to fabricate and are readily prescribed. By contrast, fixed retainers are made of orthodontic wire and composite resin bonded on the lingual or palatal surfaces of the anterior teeth. Patient-related variables need evaluation to select the appropriate retainer, while patients ought to realize the importance of retention and comply with offered guidance. Overall, the orthodontist is responsible for keeping the patient informed on the properties and the duration of retention, even before starting active orthodontic treatment.

Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review

The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may vary in duration. This review aims to present and comment on the available means of retention. The ever-popular, passive Hawley-like removable appliances are credible in maintaining the desired occlusion. Modifications are the removable appliance Wrap Around, having the labial archwire extending to the premolars; the translucent retainer, Astics, a unique aesthetic Hawley-type device; and the reinforced removable retainer, which features a metallic grid reinforcing the acrylic base. Vacuum-formed retainers are easy to fabricate and are readily prescribed. By contrast, fixed retainers are made of orthodontic wire and composite resin bonded on the lingual or palatal surfaces of the anterior teeth. Patient-related variables need evaluation to select the appropriate retainer, while patients ought to realize the importance of retention and comply with offered guidance. Overall, the orthodontist is responsible for keeping the patient informed on the properties and the duration of retention, even before starting active orthodontic treatment.

The development of a novel Orthodontic Alignment Index and its use to evaluate the effect of residual overjet on the stability of the alignment of the maxillary anterior dentition

BACKGROUND

It is thought that achieving a normal overjet may help to stabilise the alignment of the maxillary anterior dentition. Little's Irregularity Index is limited in assessing discrete post-orthodontic changes, fails to account for reciprocal rotations and is not sensitive to dental changes in three planes. A more holistic tool for the assessment of post-treatment change is therefore required.

AIM

To compare the post-treatment stability of maxillary anterior dental alignment in subjects treated either to a Class I incisor relationship or an increased overjet (> 4 mm) following fixed appliance-based orthodontics using a novel measurement tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Orthodontic Alignment Index (OAI) was developed and validated using a panel of 63 raters. The new index accounts for a range of weighted features including contact point displacement, spacing, reciprocal rotations, inclination, angulation and vertical discrepancy. A retrospective cohort study was undertaken at the Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London. Recruitment took place over a 4-year period. All participants had removable retainers in the maxillary arch only. The stability of maxillary anterior teeth was assessed using Little's Irregularity Index (LII) and the OAI. Subjects were recruited at least 12 months following completion of dual-arch fixed appliance-based treatment.

RESULTS

Eighty-two participants were included with a positive correlation observed between LII and OAI at the 12-month post-treatment review with a 1-mm increase in LII associated with a 2-point increase in the OAI (P < 0.001). Limited relapse was observed in both groups: normal overjet group (OAI = 1.28; LII = 0.52); residual overjet group (OAI = 0.88; LII = 0.47). Median regression analysis failed to identify a significant association between an increased overjet at debond and the alignment of the maxillary anterior segment when assessed with OAI (P = 0.389) and LII (P = 0.577). Furthermore, age, gender, extraction protocols and retention regime were not predictive of post-treatment change.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel index (OAI) and LII, there was limited post-treatment relapse in alignment of the maxillary anterior dentition over a 12-month period. Based on this retrospective evaluation, achieving a normal overjet at the end of treatment may have little bearing on the post-treatment stability of maxillary anterior alignment at 12 months.

Oral Microbiome in Orthodontic Acrylic Retainer

The oral microbiome can be shifted if the patients wear the acrylic retainers for a lengthy period. It is essential to understand the components of the plaque in order to forestall the development of dental caries and gingivitis. The aim of this study is to report the bacterial communities that adhere to the acrylic retainers by full-length nanopore 16S sequencing. Six healthy participants were allocated into 2 groups (chemical tablet and brushing groups). Plaque samples were collected from the acrylic retainer surfaces before and after cleaning. The bacterial communities were reported using full-length nanopore 16S sequencing. The results showed that 7 distinct phyla were identified by sequencing. The most prevalent of these was the Firmicutes. We found a total of 72 genera. The most common microorganism across all samples was Streptococcus, followed by Neisseria, Rothia, and Gemella. The beta diversity showed a significant difference between before and after cleaning (p < 0.05). This study revealed the novel finding that a combination of chemical and mechanical cleaning methods was the most effective method of eliminating retainer biofilms. Moreover, retainer cleaning tablets did not alter the homeostatic balance of the bacterial communities adhering to the acrylic retainers.

Evaluation of relapse with thermoplastic retainers equipped with microsensors

OBJECTIVES

To examine relapse with thermoplastic retainers equipped with microsensors 1 year after treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 42 patients (29 females, 13 males) treated with four premolar extractions were included in this study. Thermoplastic appliances equipped with TheraMon microsensors (Handelsagentur Gschladt, Hargelsberg, Austria) were used to assess daily wear time (DWT), and the patients were monitored at 2-month intervals for a period of 12 months. At the end of the follow-up, the following two groups were formed based on the mean DWT: short wear time (SWT; <9 h/d) and long wear time (LWT; ≥9 h/d). Digital models were constructed before treatment (T0), at debonding (T1), and 6 months (T2) and 12 months (T3) after debonding. Little's Irregularity Index (LII) and the intercanine and intermolar widths, arch lengths, overjet, and overbite were calculated based on the digital models. Data were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

Irregularity and overjet increased, whereas transverse measurements and arch lengths decreased with time in both groups. During the retention period, overbite decreased in the SWT group but increased in the LWT group. There were significant differences between groups only in mandibular irregularity. The LII values of the SWT group were significantly higher than those of the LWT group for the T1-T2 and T1-T3 time intervals (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A mean DWT less than 9 hours/day was inadequate for controlling irregularity within clinically acceptable limits. A wear time of at least 9 h/d is recommended for the maintenance of mandibular anterior alignment.

Assessment of the effect of vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers on periodontal health: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Recently, increasing attention has been paid to the periodontal health of orthodontic patients in the maintenance stage in clinical practice. The focus of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) and Hawley retainers (HR) on periodontal health, in order to provide a reference for clinical selection.

Methods

From the establishment of the database until November 2020, a large number of databases were searched to find relevant randomized control trials, including the Cochrane Library databases, Embase, PubMed, Medline via Ovi, Web of Science, Scopus, Grey Literature in Europe, Google Scholar and CNKI. Related literature was manually searched and included in the analysis. Two researchers screened the literature according to relevant criteria. The size of the effect was determined using RevMan5.3 software, and the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to estimate the results using a random effects model.

Results

This meta-analysis included six randomized controlled trials involving 304 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in sulcus probing depth status between the VFR group and the HR group, including at 1, 3, and 6 months. Compared with the VFR group, the HR group showed a lower gingival index at 1 month (mean difference = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.19) and 3 months (mean difference = 0.11, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.17), while there was no statistically significant difference at 6 months (mean difference = 0.10, 95%CI: -0.07 to 0.27). The plaque index of the HR group also showed a good state at 1 month (mean difference = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.12), 3 months (mean difference = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.08 to 0.16), and 6 months (mean difference = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.09 to 0.29). Subgroup analysis of PLI showed that when all teeth were measured, PLI status was lower in the HR group at 6 months (mean difference = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.46). PLI status was also low for the other teeth group (mean difference = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08 to 0.22).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed that patients using the Hawley retainer had better periodontal health compared with those using vacuum-formed retainers. However, more research is needed to look at the periodontal health of patients using these two retainers.

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.

Removable orthodontic retainers: practical considerations

This article provides an overview of removable orthodontic retainers, discussing their history and the different types available, and compares the two most popular removable retainers. Practical information on consent and the clinical steps involved in the provision of removable retainers, as well as suggested wear and care instructions, are also presented.

The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers-Our Clinical Experience

The Hawley retainer (HR) and the vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) are the most common removable retainers in orthodontic treatments. The aim of this retrospective study was to comparatively analyze the behavior of two types of removable retainers-HRs and VFRs-in terms of retainer damage, loss, and the rate of installation of mild or severe relapse that required recourse to certain therapeutic interventions. The study was performed on 618 orthodontic patients aged 11-17 years, average age 13.98 ± 1.51, out of which 57% were patients having VFRs and the remaining 43% having HRs in the upper arch. We performed an analysis of the two groups of patients-HRs group and VFRs group-at 6 months (T1) and at 12 months (T2) after the application of the retainer. The results showed that 6% of all the retainers were damaged, mostly at T2 (54.1%). Seven percent of all the retainers were lost, mostly at T1 (58.1%). Of all the patients, 9.1% presented mild relapse, mostly at T1 (58.9%), while 2.6% presented severe relapse. The VFRs were significantly more frequently associated with the occurrence of damage than the HRs (p < 0.001). Severe relapse was more frequently associated with the HRs rather than with VFRs (p < 0.05).

The Efficacy of Retention Appliances after Fixed Orthodontic Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the amount of the relapse of anterior crowding and the efficacy of retention appliances by reviewing the best available scientific evidence. A survey of articles published up to November 2019 about the stability of dental alignment and retention after fixed orthodontic treatment was performed using seven electronic databases. Study Selection: Only randomized clinical trials investigating patients previously treated with multi-bracket appliances with a follow-up period longer than 6 months were included. Data Extraction: Two authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. All pooled data analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated. In total, eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included, grouping data from 987 patients. The ages of the patients varied across the studies, ranging between 13 and 17 years. The observation period ranged between 6 and 24 months. The data showed no significant intercanine width modifications during the retention period with both fixed and removable retainers. A significant modification of Little’s Index was found for the mandibular removable retainers with a mean difference of 0.72 mm (95% Cl, 0.47 to 0.98) and for the maxillary removable retainers with a mean difference of 0.48 mm (95% Cl, 0.27 to 0.68). No significant changes were found by evaluating Little’s Index modification for the mandibular fixed retainers. The results of this meta-analysis showed that all the considered retainers were effective in maintaining dental alignment after fixed orthodontic treatment. However, fixed retainers showed greater efficacy compared to removable retainers.

The origin and evolution of the Hawley retainer for the effectiveness to maintain tooth position after fixed orthodontic treatment compare to vacuum-formed retainer: A systematic review of RCTs

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to summarize the effectiveness and patient compliances of Hawley retainer (HR) compared to vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) and provide the best clinical evidence related to the use of these retainers for maintaining tooth position following fixed orthodontic appliance so that orthodontists can decide which are the most appropriate methods and retainers to use for each individual patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Orthodontic journals, and relevant articles for eligible studies. Only RCTs studies were included; no restrictions on publication status or language were applied until May 20, 2019. We collected the study related to the effectiveness of these two retainers. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes, survival time, cost-effectiveness, occlusal contact, and adverse effect on gingival and speech articulation were also collected.

RESULTS

We finally included fifteen articles in the qualitative synthesis. No significant difference was observed in patients who had worn the retainers on a full-time or part-time, basis in both HR and VFR in terms of the change in arch widths and arch lengths. VFR appeared to be better at preventing relapses of incisor irregularity than HR. Patient satisfaction with VFR was higher than with HR, and there was no difference in survival rates for both types of retainers. In terms of cost-effectiveness, occlusal contacts, and gingival health, there were a few studies with limited evidence to compare these retainers. For speech articulation, VFR was less affected in comparison to HR.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that wearing VFR provides better relapse prevention of incisor irregularity than HR in both arches, indicating their usefulness in clinical practice. However, there is no evidence to show that the pattern of time duration wearing these retainers provides excellent stability. Overall, there are insufficient high-quality RCTs to provide additional evidence, and further high-quality RCTs research is needed.

Quantitative Interpretation of Hydration Dynamics Enabled the Fabrication of a Zwitterionic Antifouling Surface

In the medical industry, zwitterionic brushes have received significant attention owing to their antifouling effect that arose from their hydration ability. However, sufficient understanding of the hydration dynamics of zwitterionic brushes is required to fabricate the precisely controlled antifouling medical devices. In this paper, we successfully show that hydration, the interaction between water molecules and zwitterionic brushes, and its dynamics can be evaluated logically and quantitatively using (i) water contact angle, (ii) molecular dynamics simulation, and (iii) Raman spectroscopy. Based on the intuitive results on hydration, we precisely optimized the antifouling property of the model medical device, a removable orthodontic retainer, with various grafting efficiencies of 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphate choline. As a result, the model device reduced nonspecific adsorption of proteins and bacteria, indicating an improved antifouling effect, and also inhibited the formation of a biofilm. Furthermore, the device showed excellent physical properties desirable for application in the orthodontic field, meaning the balance between the antibacterial property and mechanical strength.

Comparison of Two Retention Appliances with Respect to Clinical Effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers during the retention period.

METHODS

A total of 30 subjects whose fixed orthodontic treatment results were evaluated according to the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III Objective Grading system were included in this study. After the removal of orthodontic attachments, the study participants were equally divided into two retention protocols: upper-lower Essix and upper-lower Hawley. The subjects were instructed to wear their retainers full time for 6 months, except during meals, and during nights only for 6 months. The clinical effectiveness of the retainers was evaluated according to the overjet, overbite, maxillary, and mandibular intercanine widths, intermolar widths, arch lengths, irregularity indexes, and lateral cephalometric measurements. All dental model and lateral cephalometric measurements were performed by the same investigator during three periods: pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention.

RESULTS

The overjet, overbite, maxillary, and mandibular intercanine widths; intermolar widths; and arch lengths and lateral cephalometric measurements were not statistically significantly different between the groups and identified time periods. Although the maxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes increased from the post-treatment to post-retention periods, the difference was not statistically significant. Pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention lateral cephalometric measurements were not statistically significantly different between and within the groups.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of a repeated-measures analysis of variance with two factors, and although an increase was found in the maxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes, the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers was found to be similar during the retention period.

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.

Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis in determining the saliva protein of orthodontic patients during retention phase

Background

The biological responses involved during retention phase have been studied for many years but little is known about the effect of saliva proteome during retention phase of post-orthodontic treatment. This study aims to identify the protein profiles during retention phase in relation to biological processes involved by Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) approach.

Material and Methods

A total of 5 ml of unstimulated saliva was collected from each subject (10 non-orthodontic patients and 15 post-orthodontic patients with 6-months retention phase). Samples were then subjected to LC-MS analysis. The expressed proteins were identified and compared between groups. Incisor irregularity for both maxilla and mandible were determined with Little’s Irregularity Index at 6-months retention phase.

Results

146 proteins and 135 proteins were expressed in control and 6-months retention phase group respectively. 15 proteins were identified to be co-expressed between groups. Immune system process was only detected in 6-months retention phase group. Detected protein in immune system process was identified as Tyrosine-protein kinase Tec. Statistical significant of incisor irregularity was only found in mandible at 6-months retention phase.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that immune system process protein which is Tyrosine-protein kinase Tec could be used as biomarker for prediction of stability during retention phase of post-orthodontic treatment.

Key words:Orthodontics, proteomics, retention, LC-MS, saliva.

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.

A survey of retention and retainer practices of orthodontists in Australia

Objective

To survey retention and retainer practices of orthodontists in Australia.

Methods

A pilot-tested e-survey was distributed to 502 eligible members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists (ASO). The questions addressed participant background information, preferred retainer and retention practices, retainer characteristics and factors influencing retainer choice. Statistical analyses were performed using PASWH version 18.

Results

The response rate was 58%. Thermoplastic retainers (TRs) were the most commonly chosen retainer in the maxilla (39.4%) and bonded retainers (BRs) were most commonly chosen in the mandible (38.5%). An initial period of full-time wear of removable retainers (RRs) was prescribed by 37.7–48.3%. ‘Night/sleeping with reducing frequency over time’ was the most commonly prescribed part-time RR wear practice (28.1-33.5%).

Indefinite retainer wear was recommended by 85.3-87.4% of orthodontists. Indefinite retainer checks were carried out by 19.1-19.8% of orthodontists while 28.9-43.6% were ‘not happy’ for general dental practitioners (GDPs) to continue retention checks. Adjunctive retention practices were used by 25.6-72.8%. Pre-fabrication TR sheet thickness of 1.0 mm (68%) and polypropylene co-polymer/ethylene material type (55.8%) were most commonly used. Vacuum-forming was the preferred mode of TR fabrication by 48.4%. ‘Stainless steel single strand round’ was the most commonly used BR material type (33.4%). BR bonded to 12-22 (bonded to four teeth) was the most common BR design in the maxilla (48.8%) and 33-43 (bonded to six teeth) was most commonly chosen for the mandible (81.5%). Inadvertent tooth movement associated with BRs was observed by 62%. The orthodontist factor that most influenced retainer choice was the nature of the pretreatment malocclusion (88%).

Conclusion

Although there is agreement that retention is indefinite, orthodontic retention practices and retainer characteristics vary considerably between orthodontists in Australia. Greater communication between orthodontists and GDPs is required to effectively manage retention over the long term.

Hypodontia of mandibular incisors: considerations on the orthodontic treatment

Hypodontia is the most prevalent craniofacial malformation in mankind. It may present a wide variety of manifestations and, depending on the number and location of missing teeth, it may affect the esthetics, mastication, speech and occlusal balance. This paper discusses the therapeutic approaches to solve this condition, describing a case report with hypodontia of one mandibular lateral incisor, which treatment option included space closure at the region of hypodontia associated with composite resin restorations in the mandibular central incisors. The three-year follow-up after treatment revealed occlusal stability, adequate intercuspation in Class I relationship and excellent micro and macroesthetics.

A systematic review of orthodontic retention systems: The verdict

INTRODUCTION

Retention during both the active and passive phases of treatment has given rise to numerous publications concerning its efficacy, the range of systems available and its variability over time. There are currently many different retention protocols regularly used by orthodontists; however, their efficacy and duration are still subject to debate. There is as yet no consensus as to which retention protocol is the most effective or for how long the retention device needs to be worn. The aim of this research was to perform a systematic review of the scientific literature in order to evaluate the efficacy of the different retention systems and clinical protocols among those most widely used, so as to make recommendations beneficial to both patient and practitioner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the literature was performed in the following databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library. The search was limited to publications in English and French during the period 2006-2016.

RESULTS

Out of 1952 references initially identified, 17 articles corresponded to our inclusion criteria. The results show that: fixed retention is more effective than removable retainers for the maintenance of incisor alignment during the first six months of retention; there is no significant difference in efficacy between the different fixed retention systems; there is no significant difference in efficacy between the vacuum-formed systems and the Hawley retainer; part-time use of removable retainers (between 8-10h/day) is sufficient; the most widely used retention protocol combines a vacuum-formed splint or Hawley retainer in the upper arch with mandibular fixed retention.

CONCLUSION

Despite the large number of studies devoted to orthodontic retention only a few articles corresponded to the methodological criteria of bio statistical analysis. Also, on account of the variations in experimental protocols, the levels of proof relating to the efficacy of different systems are very weak. Research into this topic should first seek to normalize methods of analysis and then perform randomized controlled long-term trials to shed light on this problem.

Periodontal health and compliance: A comparison between Essix and Hawley retainers

INTRODUCTION

Many studies on removable retainers have focused on retention efficacy and characteristics. However, studies on plaque accumulation, periodontal health, breakages, and patient compliance are still lacking. Thus, in this study, we aimed at evaluating these parameters in 2 groups of young patients wearing Essix or Hawley retainers for a 6-month period.

METHODS

Seventy subjects were included. Periodontal health was investigated by measuring the plaque, gingival, calculus, and bleeding on probing indexes. Evaluations were performed at 1, 3, and 6 months of wearing. Accumulation of plaque on the retainers was also evaluated. Furthermore, compliance on wearing retainers and breakage data were collected by specific questionnaires.

RESULTS

Subjects wearing Essix retainers had significantly higher levels of plaque, gingival, and calculus indexes and increased percentages of bleeding sites, compared with subjects wearing Hawley retainers. The Essix group also had increased accumulations of plaque and calculus on the retainers. Nonetheless, subjects of the Essix group had better overall experiences, self-perceptions, and comfort compared with those of the Hawley group. Essix retainers had higher incidences of little and serious breakages compared with Hawley retainers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that Essix retainers are well accepted by patients for their esthetic and oral comfort characteristics. However, Essix retainers may cause greater accumulations of plaque on both teeth and retainers, presumably because of inhibition of the cleaning effect of saliva caused by the thermoplastic material or the reduced opportunity for good hygiene on the retainer.

Retention and relapse in clinical practice

Maintaining teeth in their corrected positions following orthodontic treatment can be extremely challenging. Teeth have a tendency to move back towards the original malocclusion as a result of periodontal, gingival, occlusal and growth related factors. However, tooth movement can also occur as a result of normal age changes. Because orthodontics is unable to predict which patients are at risk of relapse, those which will remain stable and the extent of relapse that will occur in the long-term, clinicians need to treat all patients as if they have a high potential to relapse. To reduce this risk, long term retention is advocated. This can be a significant commitment for patients, and so retention and the potential for relapse must form a key part of the informed consent process prior to orthodontic treatment. It is vital that patients are made fully aware of their responsibilities in committing to wear retainers as prescribed in order to reduce the chance of relapse. If patients are unable or unwilling to comply as prescribed, they must be prepared to accept that there will be tooth positional changes following treatment. There is currently insufficient high quality evidence regarding the best type of retention or retention regimen, and so each clinician's approach will be affected by their personal, clinical experience and expertise, and guided by their patients' expectations and circumstances.

Mandibular arch orthodontic treatment stability using passive self-ligating and conventional systems in adults: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the stability of mandibular arch orthodontic treatment outcomes between passive self-ligating and conventional systems during 6 months of retention.

Methods

Fortyseven orthodontic patients with mild to moderate crowding malocclusions not requiring extraction were recruited based on inclusion criteria. Patients (mean age 21.58 ± 2.94 years) were randomized into two groups to receive either passive self-ligating (Damon® 3MX, n = 23) or conventional system (Gemini MBT, n = 24) orthodontic treatment. Direct measurements of the final sample comprising 20 study models per group were performed using a digital caliper at the debonding stage, and 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after debonding. Paired t-test, independent t-test, and non-parametric test were used for statistical analysis.

Results

A significant increase (p < 0.01) in incisor irregularity was observed in both self-ligating and conventional system groups. A significant reduction (p < 0.01) in second interpremolar width was observed in both groups. Mandibular arch length decreased significantly (p = 0.001) in the conventional system group but not in the self-ligating system group. A similar pattern of stability was observed for intercanine width, first interpremolar width, intermolar width, and arch depth throughout the 6-month retention period after debonding. Comparison of incisor irregularity and arch dimension changes between self-ligating system and conventional system groups during the 6 months were non-significant.

Conclusions

The stability of treatment outcomes for mild to moderate crowding malocclusions was similar between the self-ligating system and conventional system during the first 6 months of retention.

A multicentre audit of GDPs knowledge of orthodontic retention

OBJECTIVE

To determine GDP knowledge and willingness to supervise orthodontic retention and provide replacements retainers.

DESIGN

An audit sampling GDPs from six centres within England (Bradford, Cambridge, Burton-Upon-Trent, Croyden, Norwich and Plymouth). A gold standard of 100% of GDPs should be aware of commonly used retainers and be able to provide replacements was selected.

METHOD

Overall, 1,053 postal questionnaires were sent to local GDPs. The questions covered knowledge and provision of various retainers, practitioner background and education. GDP satisfaction with the information provided by the orthodontist at discharge was also explored.

RESULTS

Five hundred and two questionnaires were received (response rate of 48%). The majority of GDPs (64%) were trained in the UK. Awareness of vacuum-formed, Hawley and fixed retainers was generally high. A significantly smaller number of GDPs were willing to prescribe, fit or review the retainers. The most common reasons for reluctance in provision were insufficient knowledge, financial and time constraints. Over two thirds (72%) of GDPs would like further training on retention.

CONCLUSION

This audit highlights a need for increased training at undergraduate and postgraduate levels to update practitioners about contemporary retention practice. Better communication is required from orthodontists to GDPs to ensure that on discharge the dentist is aware of the retainer type and retention regime.

Retention in orthodontics

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

Survey on Retention Protocols Among Turkish Orthodontists

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify general retention protocols practiced by Turkish orthodontist and to compare the results obtained with those of similar studies in Western countries.

METHODS

The Web-based survey consisted of 29 questions: 3 to identify the demographic characteristics of the participants and 26 to examine how orthodontists manage the retention phase. Data was interpreted by descriptive statistical methods such as the median test, the Mann-Whitney U-test and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The survey return rate was 73.8%. Pretreatment malocclusion status (87%), oral hygiene status (78%), and presence of third molars (63%) were reported to be the most important factors in determining the type of retainer. Bonded retainers, either alone (29% in maxilla and 34% in mandible) or supplemented with vacuum-formed retainers (27% in maxilla and 32% in mandible) were the most commonly used type of retainer. The preference for lifelong retention varied from 7% to 19%. Female orthodontists scheduled the first appointment after debonding sooner than male orthodontists (p<0.05). Orthodontists working in universities scheduled first appointments later than orthodontists working in private practices (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Turkish orthodontists still give importance to the third molars in their retention protocols, contrary to what is suggested in the current literature, and lifetime retention is rarely preferred as compared to other countries.

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.

Assessment of Factors Affecting Adolescent Patients' Compliance with Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers

INTRODUCTION

Success of orthodontic retention with removable retainers almost entirely depends on patients' compliance.

AIM

This study was carried out to investigate the relationship between adolescent orthodontic patients' compliance and various clinical and social factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data were collected from 77 orthodontic patients aged 7-11 years old who had finished the full fixed appliance therapy. Hawley's retainers were used in 34 patients and 43 patients used Vacuum Formed Retainers (VFRs). The subjects completed a questionnaire including several identifiers allowing the respondents to be classified into subgroups. They were also asked to indicate how long they wore their retainers during the day, by writing the number of hours in the report-card for the next three months. Comparison of the results was performed by one-way ANOVA and independent sample-t tests.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between males and females. Type of the retainer, patients' grade of study, mothers' occupation, clinicians' and parents' attitudes and filling the report cards had significant effect on mean wear hours per day. When compliance of the patients was assessed according to treatment location, Living place, parents' educational degrees and ethnicity, no significant differences could be found.

CONCLUSION

The adolescent patients' compliance was greater with VFRs than with Hawley's retainers. Parental attitude and doctor-patient relationship had a great impact on adolescent patients' compliance.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Anterior tooth alignment: A comparison of orthodontic retention regimens 5 years posttreatment

OBJECTIVE

To assess orthodontic treatment outcome at debonding and at 3 and 5 years after orthodontic treatment and to investigate the influence of different retention protocols on anterior tooth alignment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index, 169 patients (74 boys, 95 girls) were analyzed at four stages: pretreatment (T0), posttreatment (T1), 3 years posttreatment (T3), and 5 years posttreatment (T5). The PAR anterior component scores (ACSs) were compared between groups with different retention protocols. In the maxilla, protocols were removable retainer until T3 (MAX1), removable and fixed retainer until T3 (MAX2), and removable retainer until T3 and fixed retainer until T5 (MAX3). In the mandible, protocols were no retainer (MAND1), fixed 3-3 retainer until T3 (MAND2), and fixed 3-3 retainer until T5 (MAND3).

RESULTS

Mean weighted improvement in PAR score was 88.3% at T1, 86.4% at T3, and 82.1% at T5. The ACS for the maxilla showed no significant differences between the retention protocols at any time point. In the mandible, the group without retention showed a gradual but not significant deterioration in ACS throughout the posttreatment period. At T5 there was a significant difference in ACS between the group that had the retainer removed at T3 and the group that kept the retainer.

CONCLUSION

The 5-year treatment outcome, as measured by the PAR Index, was good. Stability of the maxillary anterior alignment 5 years posttreatment did not appear to be influenced by choice of retention protocol. Mandibular anterior alignment was significantly better for the group using a fixed retainer compared with the group where the retainer was removed 3 years posttreatment.

Retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers among specialist orthodontists

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) among specialist orthodontists.

DESIGN

Postal/electronic (e-) questionnaire.

SETTING

Republic of Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the Dental Council of Ireland Specialist Register of Orthodontists and/or Orthodontic Society of Ireland.

METHODS

A pilot-tested questionnaire was distributed to 123 eligible specialist orthodontists. Questions addressed respondent demographics, preferred retainer choice in the maxillary and mandibular arches, prescribed wear protocols, VFR characteristics and factors influencing retainer choice. Statistical analyses were performed using PASW® version 18.

RESULTS

The response rate was 82%. VFRs were the most commonly chosen retainer, prescribed by 53% of respondents in the maxilla and 33% in the mandible. Full-time followed by part-time wear of removable retainers (RRs) was the wear protocol favoured by the majority (70-76%). Full occlusal coverage was the VFR design favoured by 93%. VFR sheet thicknesses of 1.0 mm (68%) and 0.75 mm (16%) were most commonly prescribed. Seventeen per cent were aware that their patients used their VFRs as a receptacle for dental bleaching gel. Life-time wear of retainers was advised by 67-78%. The operator factor that most influenced retainer choice was the pre-treatment situation (88%).

CONCLUSIONS

VFRs were the most common retainer choice in the maxilla and mandible with full-time wear followed by part-time wear of RRs favoured by most. Full occlusal coverage with a thickness of 1.0 mm was the VFR design prescribed by the majority. More than one in six specialist orthodontists were aware that their patients used their VFRs as a receptacle for dental bleaching gel.

Effects of wear time recording on the patient's compliance

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of wear-time recording on subjective and objective wear time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study retrospectively examined a group of 18 patients and a control group of 14 patients at four appointments over 168 days. The patients were treated with removable appliances with embedded TheraMon-microsensors to be worn for 15 hours per day. The study group was not told about the microsensor until the first appointment after fitting of the appliance. At each appointment patients were asked about their subjective wear time and afterward were told about the objective wear time. The existence of the microsensor was revealed to the control group when the appliance was fitted. Objective wear time was also announced at every appointment.

RESULTS

Mean wear times did not significantly differ between groups at any appointment or regarding overall wear time. Highly significant differences between subjective and objective wear time were found when patients did not know that their wear time had been monitored.

CONCLUSION

Mean wear times assessed in this study concur with data of previous studies. Patients tend to overestimate their wear times but become more realistic once they know wear time is being monitored. Objective measurement of wear time allows a more realistic view of compliance by patient and orthodontist. Knowing that wear time is recorded does not necessarily increase the amount of time removable appliances are worn by the patient.

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

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

A retrospective randomized double-blind comparison study of the effectiveness of Hawley vs vacuum-formed retainers

OBJECTIVE

To compare Hawley with vacuum-formed retainers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-two patients who had received treatment with upper and lower fixed appliances were randomly assigned either a Hawley or a vacuum-formed retainer. Study models were fabricated for each patient on day of debond and 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months after debond. Using a specially constructed pantograph, four variables were measured for each set of models at each of these time periods. These were upper and lower intermolar widths, intercanine widths, arch length, and a modified Little's index of irregularity. Method error was determined by repeating the measurements on 10 sets of models.

RESULTS

For each of the variables under test and at each of the four time periods, there were no statistically significant differences (α  =  .05) between each of the two retainers, vacuum-formed and Hawley.

CONCLUSION

The degree of relapse that is likely to occur following a course of fixed appliance therapy is unlikely to be affected by the choice of retainer, vacuum-formed or Hawley. Therefore, when deciding on the type of retainer to be fitted following fixed appliance therapy, other factors such as cost may play a more significant role.