A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

Retention efficacy and patient experience with customized clear retainer and wrap-around circumferential retainer among non-extraction orthodontic patients: A 12-month follow-up cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate retention efficacy by assessing retention stability and patient perspectives according to type of circumferential retainer: the wrap-around circumferential retainer (WCR) and customized clear retainer (CCR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort follow-up study involved 52 patients aged 18-62 who underwent fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment without extractions or orthognathic surgery. Following screening consenting participants were divided into WCR and CCR groups. All participants before follow-up received fixed retainers for the upper and lower anteriors and respective removable retainers within 2 weeks post-debond. Intraoral scans and lateral cephalograms were taken immediately after debonding (T0) and again 12 months later. Dentoalveolar changes in several measurements were compared to evaluate retention efficacy. Surveys were conducted at 1 month (T1) and 12 months (T2) post-debonding to assess changes in patient experiences. Outcome assessments were blinded. Paired T-tests and independent T-tests were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of dentoalveolar measurements, respectively. Survey responses were analysed using the Pearson Chi-Square test.

RESULTS

The final assessment included 32 participants. Model analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups, except for maxillary intermolar width (p = .033). In the WCR group, the cephalometric analysis indicated a significant increase in the incisor mandibular plane angle (p = .002) and a decrease in the interincisal angle (p = .014), while changes in the CCR group were statistically non-significant. Patient attitude evaluation showed similar trends for wear time and overall satisfaction. However, a higher percentage of respondents in the WCR group reported irritation when wearing the retainers (p = .037) at T1 and discomfort related to speech (p = .038) at T2.

CONCLUSIONS

CCR showed better retention efficacy in terms of lower incisor inclination. Patients experienced relatively less irritation and speech discomfort with CCRs.

Can vacuum-formed retainers maintain arch dimensions and alignment compared to Hawley and fixed bonded retainers after treatment with fixed appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different types of retention appliances have been proposed over the years, but their effectiveness in maintaining arch dimensions and alignment after orthodontic treatment is still unclear.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) in preserving arch widths, arch length, and anterior alignment in maxillary and mandibular arches, compared to removable Hawley retainers (HRs) or fixed bonded retainers (FBRs). Search methods: unrestricted literature search of five major databases up to March 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

randomized/non-randomized clinical studies comparing VFRs to removable HRs or FBRs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

after duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, random effects meta-analyses of standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were performed, followed by meta-regressions, sensitivity analyses, and assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.

RESULTS

Twenty-two prospective studies (4 non-randomized and 18 randomized controlled trials) involving 1797 patients (mean age 17.01 years, 38.3% males) were included. No significant differences were found in the intercanine width, intermolar width, and arch length between VFRs and HRs, in both arches (P > 0.05). However, VFRs were statistically more effective than HRs in terms of Little's irregularity scores (LII) in the maxilla (eight studies; SMD = -0.42; 95% CI: -1.03 to -0.09; P = 0.02; I2 = 73.4%) but not in the mandible (P = 0.12). No significant differences were reported for all considered outcomes between VFRs and FBRs in in both arches (P > 0.05), except for lower LII, where VFRs were significantly less efficient (eight studies; SMD = 1.49; 95% CI = 0.26-2.7; P = 0.02; I2 = 93%). Follow-up times, risk of bias, and wire type (of FBRs) did not show statistically significant effects on outcome variables. Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the findings for including non-randomized and postretention studies. The certainty in these estimates was from moderate to low due to the risk of bias and inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

Low to moderate quality evidence indicates that VFRs are as effective as HRs in maintaining arch widths, length, and alignment. Low-quality evidence found similar efficacy between VFRs and FBRs, with FBRs being statistically more effective at maintaining lower arch alignment, but the difference was not clinically significant.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration (CRD42024518433).

Effect of attachment flash on clear aligner force delivery: an in vitro study

BACKGROUND

The introduction of auxiliaries such as composite attachment has improved the force delivery of clear aligner (CA) therapy. However, the placement of the attachment may give rise to a flash, defined as excess resin around the attachment which may affect CA force delivery. This in vitro study aims to determine the differences in the force generated by the attachment in the presence or absence of flash in CA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tristar Trubalance aligner sheets were used to fabricate the CAs. Thirty-four resin models were 3D printed and 17 each, were bonded with ellipsoidal or rectangular attachments on maxillary right central incisors. Fuji Prescale pressure film was used to measure the force generated by the attachment of CA. The images of colour density produced on the films were processed using a calibrated pressure mapping system utilising image processing techniques and topographical force mapping to quantify the force. The force measurement process was repeated after the flash was removed from the attachment using tungsten-carbide bur on a slow-speed handpiece.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficient showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.92-0.98). The average mean force exerted by ellipsoidal attachments with flash was 8.05 ± 0.16 N, while 8.11 ± 0.18 N was without flash. As for rectangular attachments, the average mean force with flash was 8.48 ± 0.27 N, while 8.53 ± 0.13 N was without flash. Paired t-test revealed no statistically significant difference in the mean force exerted by CA in the presence or absence of flash for both ellipsoidal (p = 0.07) and rectangular attachments (p = 0.41). Rectangular attachments generated statistically significantly (p < 0.001) higher mean force than ellipsoidal attachments for flash and without flash.

CONCLUSION

Although rectangular attachment generated a significantly higher force than ellipsoidal attachment, the force generated by both attachments in the presence or absence of flash is similar (p > 0.05).

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.

Resistance of PETG Materials on Thermocycling and Brushing

The aim was to assess the impact of thermocycling and brushing on the surface roughness and mass of PETG material-the most commonly used for orthodontic retainers. A total of 96 specimens were exposed to thermocycling and brushing with three different kinds of toothbrushes depending on the number and thickness of the bristles. Surface roughness and mass were evaluated three times: initially, after thermocycling, and after brushing. In all four brands, both thermocycling and brushing increased surface roughness significantly (p < 0.001), with Biolon having the lowest and Track A having the highest. In terms of brushing, only Biolon samples showed statistically significant increased roughness after brushing with all three types of brushes, in comparison to Erkodur A1, where differences were not statistically significant. Thermocycling increased the mass of all samples, but a statistically significant difference was found only in Biolon (p = 0.0203), while after brushing, decreased mass was found in all specimens, statistically significant only in Essix C+ (CS 1560: p = 0.016). PETG material showed instability when exposed to external influences- thermocycling produced an increase in roughness and mass, and brushing mostly caused an increase in roughness and decrease in mass. Erkodur A1 demonstrated the greatest stability, whereas Biolon demonstrated the lowest.

Direct 3D-Printed Orthodontic Retainers. A Systematic Review

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has shed light on many fields in medicine and dentistry, including orthodontics. Direct 3D-printed prosthetics, implants or surgical devices are well-documented. The fabrication of orthodontic retainers using CAD technology and additive manufacturing is an emerging trend but the available data are scarce. The research approach of the present review included keywords in Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar up to December 2022. The searching process concluded with five studies eligible for our project. Three of them investigated directly 3D-printed clear retainers in vitro. The other two studies investigated directly 3D-printed fixed retainers. Among them, one study was in vitro and the second was a prospective clinical trial. Directly 3D-printed retainers can be evolved over time as a good alternative to all the conventional materials for retention. Devices that are 3D-printed are more time and cost efficient, offer more comfortable procedures for both practitioners and patients and the materials used in additive manufacturing can solve aesthetic problems, periodontal issues or problems with the interference of these materials with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). More well-designed prospective clinical trials are necessary for more evaluable results.

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.