Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability

A Novel 3-Dimensional Printed Nanoceramic Hybrid Resin Fixed Lingual Retainer: Characterization and Mechanical Tests

Introduction: An innovative retention protocol was developed to create a new 3D-printed fixed retainer employing SprintRay OnX nanoceramic hybrid resin. The feasibility and usability of the retainer were subsequently evaluated. Methods: Identification and characterization of SprintRay OnX was done using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray (SEM-EDX), field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and flexural strength. Load-deflection and pull-out tests were conducted on the 3D-printed straight wires, with three distinct cross-sectional geometries: round (1 mm), oval (1 mm × 1.5 mm) and semielliptical (1 mm × 1.5 mm). Twisted G&H and coaxial Respond stainless steel multistrand retainers were used for comparison. In the load-deflection test, a three-point bending test (3PBT) was employed. For the pull-out test, the retainer wire was inserted into the composite, which was placed in a centrally located hole of an acrylic block; the retainer wire was subjected to a tensile force along its long axis. Results: Characteristic bands close to those of PMMA were observed in the FTIR spectra. SEM-EDX and XRD revealed a crystalline material with homogeneously distributed Yb element signals (19.4%). On FE-SEM micrographs, small clumps were displayed on smooth surfaces. The flexural strength and the flexural modulus were, respectively, 142.48 MPa and 7.842 GPa. All groups of 3D-printed wires exhibited significantly higher load-deflection levels than the multistrand wires (MSWs). Concerning pull-out forces, they fell in between twisted G&H (96 N) and coaxial Respond (48.09 N) retainer wires. The 3D-printed wires fractured cohesively without detachment from the adhesive, suggesting that the chemical bond was adequate for satisfactory wire integration, yet the wire's strength was compromised. Concerning the cross-sectional geometry, the load-deflection and the pull-out forces of 3D-printed oval and semielliptical wires were significantly higher than that of 3D-printed round wires, which was attributed to the larger cross-sections of the wires. Conclusion: Oval and semielliptical 3D-printed wires offered favorable features as lingual retainers.

Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone versus dead-soft coaxial bonded retainers: a randomized clinical trial. Part 2: periodontal health and microbial biofilm assessment

BACKGROUND

Retainers have the potential to detrimentally impact periodontal health and contribute to tooth decay.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate periodontal health and bacterial biofilm related to Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) fixed retainers as compared to Dead-soft coaxial fixed retainer (DSC).

TRIAL DESIGN

A two-arm parallel groups single-centre randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

The trial included patients whose orthodontic treatment was completed and required retainers. Participants were randomly assigned into two retainer groups: PEEK retainers, prepared by computer-aided design and manufacturing into 0.8 mm wire form, and DSC retainers. The objectives included assessing periodontal health through plaque accumulation index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal pocket depth (PPD), gingival index (GI), calculus index (CI), and alveolar bone height (ABH) assessment. Biofilm assessment involved bacteriological screening of aerobic, facultative anaerobic, mutans streptococci, and lactobacilli. The periodontal indices and microbiological screening as well as were assessed at the debonding stage (T0), 1-month (T1), 3-month (T3), and 6-month (T6) after the commencement of the trial, except for the ABH, which was recorded using periapical radiograph at T0 and T6.

BLINDING

Single blinding of participants in addition to the bacteriological specialist.

RESULTS

Initially, the trial enrolled 46 participants, aged between 12 and 28 years, and were randomly assigned to two groups, with 23 participants in each group. Subsequently, one participant withdrew from the trial, resulting in a total of 45 participants whose data were analysed. Assessment of the periodontal indices, excluding the CI (P = .480), revealed statistically but not clinically significant differences between groups after 6-month of retention (P = .016 of PI, P = .020 of BOP, P = .05 of PPD, and P = .01 of GI). There was slight plaque accumulation, normal PPD (approximately 1 mm), healthy to mild gingivitis with a GI of less than 1 and BOP was around 10%. Concerning the ABH, there was a noticeable reduction in its score after 6 months, particularly in the PEEK group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .102). Furthermore, the bacteriological viable count did not show any significant difference between the groups during the recall visits.

HARMS

There have been no reported negative consequences.

LIMITATIONS

Blinding the assessor of periodontal indices was not feasible due to the nature of the intervention. The trial follow-up duration was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the PEEK and DSC retainers have comparable impacts on periodontal health and bacterial accumulation and composition during the retention period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05557136.

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).

Elemental composition, corrosion resistance and mechanical properties of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers

PURPOSE

To investigate the elemental composition, corrosion resistance, and mechanical properties of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) retainers versus conventional fixed retainers (FRs).

METHODS

Eight different retainer wires were investigated. Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy was used to determine the elemental composition. Leakage was analysed according to ISO 10271:2020 guidelines. Hardness was tested using the Vickers method with a load of 0.3 kg. The tensile force and tensile strength were evaluated. Multiple comparisons among wires of hardness, tensile force, and strength were conducted using the Welch t-test, with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

Nickel was present in all wires. The CAD-CAM-FR wire, which contained more nickel than the other wires, had no measurable leakage. The gold-plated wires had the highest total leakage, but did not exceed the ISO standard limit. The hardness of the stainless-steel twisted wires was the highest and that of the CAD-CAM-FR wire was the lowest. The tensile strength of the CAD-CAM-FR wire was significantly lower than that of the other wires and similar to the other twisted-wire retainers.

CONCLUSION

The CAD-CAM-FR wire is likely to have high corrosion resistance and flexibility due to its low hardness.

Stability and failure rate during 3 years of fixed retention: A follow-up of an randomized clinical trial on adolescents with four different lingual retainers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate stability outcomes and failure rates associated with four types of lingual retainers: (1) dead-soft wire, (2) multistrand stainless steel (SS) wire, (3) CAD/CAM nitinol, and (4) connected bonding pads (CBPs) after 3 years of retention.

METHODS

This study enrolled 96 patients (66 females, 30 males) with a median age of 19 years with four types of lingual retainers: (1) 0.016 × 0.022-inch dead-soft wire, (2) 0.0215-inch five-strand SS wire, (3) 0.014 × 0.014-inch CAD/CAM nitinol wire, and (4) CBPs. The irregularity index, intercanine distances, and arch lengths were obtained and used to evaluate mandibular stability. Failure rates were also assessed during this study. Data were statistically analysed.

RESULTS

Irregularity increased, whereas intercanine width and arch length decreased after 3 years of retention. The greatest irregularity was associated with the CBPs and the least with the CAD/CAM retainers. Changes in stability measurements were significantly higher in the dead-soft wire and CBPs than those in the CAD/CAM nitinol and multistrand SS wires. Parallel to these changes, the frequency of failure yielded similar results with the same significance between the groups. The failure rate of CBPs, in contrast to the CAD/CAM nitinol and multistrand SS wires, was significantly higher in the right quadrant (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

After taking the 3-year results into consideration, CAD/CAM nitinol and multistrand SS wires were found to be more successful than the others in maintaining mandibular stability. The most failures were observed with CBPs after 3 years of retention.

Periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers: 0.032-in SS V-loop versus 0.0215-in SS coaxial - a randomized crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomized crossover trial evaluated periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers (a modified 0.032-in SS V-loop retainer and a conventional 0.0215-in SS coaxial wire retainer) after bonded for six months. Also, bonded failure rate, and a questionnaire about comfort, ease of cleaning and overall preference were recorded.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

15 patients were enrolled in this study who used both retainers for six months each, having a 15-day wash-out interval between each bonded retainer usage. The following periodontal index were recorded: Plaque Index (PI), Calculus Index (CI) and Gingival Index (GI). Patients answered a questionnaire to assess comfort, ease of cleaning and overall retainer-type preference. Rate of bonding failure was also evaluated.

RESULTS

V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (P<0.05) as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer. However, CI and GI presented no statistically significant differences between both types of retainers. The conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire retainer was chosen as the most comfortable (p<0.05), although no statistically significant differences were found for all other questionnaire answers. Bonding failure events were more observed in the 3x3 V-Loop retainer (p<0.002), as compared to the conventional 0.0215-in coaxial retainer.

CONCLUSION

V-Loop retainer showed higher PI (p<0.05), higher bonding failure rate and less comfortable, as compared to conventional 0.0215-in coaxial wire.

Preclinical in vitro study of streptococcus mutans accumulation in three fixed retainer designs: Microbiological assay

The use of fixed retainers in the lower arch is frequent; however, its presence increases the accumulation of biofilm and dental calculus. The objective of this research was to evaluate, in vitro, the accumulation of Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) in 3 designs of fixed retainers. Nine models were reproduced in heat-cured acrylic resin and divided into groups: straight retainer (SR), retainer with vertical strap (RVS), retainer with horizontal strap (RHS). The accumulation of S. mutans was assessed using the MTT assay (3-4,5-dimethyl-thiazol-2-yl-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) and then measured using an automated reader. The RHS group showed less biofilm accumulation compared to the other groups (p<0.05). The distance between the tooth surface and the retainer showed a strong negative correlation with biofilm accumulation (rs=-0.79, p=0.00037). The RHS showed significantly less accumulation of S. mutans due to the distance between the retainer and the tooth surface. This research provides relevant data for a future randomized clinical trial.

A comparison of CAD/CAM-based fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Comparing computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers and conventional fixed retainers for their effectiveness in orthodontic patients using systematic review and meta-analysis of literature.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane's CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Ovid, and LILACS up to May 2023, with no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that complied with PICO questions were included, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using custom-piloted forms, relevant data were retrieved from the included studies. Then a random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis was used to pool the results. Primary outcomes were stability of treatment results measured through dental cast measurements and periodontal status, while secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 601 participants were included in the review. In the short term (≤6 months), the meta-analysis showed no significant differences in inter-canine distance or arch length between CAD/CAM and conventional fixed retainers in mandibular retainers. However, for Little's irregularity index, single-stranded stainless-steel retainers were notably worse than Ni-Ti CAD/CAM retainers at 3 and 6 months, while multi-stranded stainless-steel retainers only diverged from CAD/CAM at the 6-month milestone, despite the overall clinical inconsequence of these changes. CAD/CAM retainers were associated with a lower plaque index than traditional retainers but no significant difference in gingival index. Failure rates did not differ significantly between CAD/CAM and other types of retainers in mandibular retainers. Nonetheless, one study had a high amount of CAD/CAM retainer failures leading to the study being stopped.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term, CAD/CAM fixed retainers show promise as an alternative to traditional retainers. They may enhance periodontal health, as indicated by lower plaque index scores than conventional retainers. However, extensive research is needed to determine the long-term durability and effectiveness of CAD/CAM retainers in orthodontic treatment, particularly regarding their failure rate. Until comprehensive evidence is available, the use of CAD/CAM retainers should be tailored for each case.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO with the ID CRD42023412741.

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.

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.

CAD/CAM nitinol bonded retainer versus a chairside rectangular-chain bonded retainer: A multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bonded retainers are widely used to maintain the positions of anterior teeth after orthodontic treatment. Various types of bonded retainer exist however, there is a lack of evidence to indicate which type is superior.

AIM

To compare upper and lower CAD/CAM nitinol bonded retainers (Memotain®) with upper and lower chairside rectangular-chain bonded retainers (Ortho-FlexTech™), in terms of stability, retainer failures and patient satisfaction.

TRIAL DESIGN

Multi-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial with 1:1 allocation.

SETTING

Three trial centres: University Teaching Hospital; District General Hospital; and Specialist Orthodontic Practice. All treatment was provided free as part of a state-funded healthcare system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 68 patients were randomly allocated to receive either upper and lower Memotain® bonded retainers or upper and lower Ortho-FlexTech™ bonded retainers. Ten trained operators placed and reviewed the bonded retainers. Measurements were carried out on study models taken at debond and after six months. Patient satisfaction questionnaires were completed at six months following debond.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated due to the high number of failures (50%) of the upper Memotain® retainers within six months. Memotain® retainers were three times more likely to fail (unadjusted hazard ratio = 2.82, 95% confidence interval = 1.00-7.99) than Ortho-FlexTech™ retainers at six months in the upper arch. Patients were satisfied with both types of retainer.

LIMITATIONS

Early termination of the trial means that the a priori sample size was not reached, so outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

The trial was terminated early due to the high failure rate of upper Memotain® bonded retainers. They had a higher risk of failure in the maxillary arch when compared to upper Ortho-FlexTech™ bonded retainers after six months.

Clinical Study on Efficiency of Using Traditional Direct Bonding or OrthGuide Computer-Aided Indirect Bonding in Orthodontic Patients

Objective

This study aims to clinically investigate and compare the therapeutic effects and treatment cycle between traditional direct bonding and OrthGuide computer-aided indirect bonding in orthodontic treatment.

Methods

Forty patients treated at the Department of Orthodontics, Beijing Rytime Dental Hospital between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were included. The patients were divided into a control group (n = 20, traditional direct bonding) and a test group (n = 20, OrthGuide computer-aided indirect bonding). The American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) measurement was performed on patients using Uceph cephalometric analysis software to compare intragroup and intergroup differences, and the treatment cycles of all patients were recorded.

Results

After treatment, U1-NA (mm), ∠U1-SN (°), LL-EP (mm), and UL-EP (mm) in the control group were significantly lower than before treatment, and there was no significant difference in other ABO measurement indexes, while the test group showed no marked difference in all ABO measurements between pre- and posttreatment. Further, intergroup comparison showed no significant difference in ABO measurements in pre- and posttreatment between the two groups. The test group had a shorter treatment cycle than the control group, with an average treatment cycle of 21.20 ± 7.14 months in the control group and 17.17 ± 4.16 months in the test group.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the therapeutic effects between the direct and indirect bonding techniques. However, OrthGuide computer-assisted indirect bonding demonstrated a significantly shorter treatment cycle and might be more efficient than traditional direct bonding.

Efficacy of CAD/CAM Technology in Interventions Implemented in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trials

Objectives. To evaluate the efficacy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology in interventions implemented in orthodontics. Methods. A scoping review of scientific evidence was accomplished, involving different databases. MesH terms and keywords were provided to examine clinical trials (CTs) in all languages. Exclusively CTs that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were admitted. Results. Eight CTs were chosen. These experiments evaluated 542 patients. Four CTs compared the computer-aided indirect bonding method versus the traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Three CTs compared CAD/CAM retainers with other types of retainers, and one CT compared the CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires versus stainless steel wires. Regarding the efficacy of the interventions with CAD/CAM technology used in orthodontics, variable results were found. The indirect bonded customized CAD/CAM brackets presented just a slight effect on the treatment efficacy and therapy results. Two CTs showed that an indirect bonding self-ligating standard system had a similar quality of therapy in comparison with the CAD/CAM customized bracket system. Concerning the clinical failure rate, no differences were presented between the CAD/CAM retainer and other retainers. A CAD/CAM system had more loose brackets than a noncustomized system and was observed also a greater amount of immediate debonding with CAD/CAM indirect bonding than with direct bonding. CAD/CAM fixed retainers revealed inferior relapse and fewer failures than lab-based and conventional chairside retainers. No changes between treatment groups were observed regarding the total therapy time, amount of appointments, and quantity of archwire bends. Conclusions. In general terms, no greater efficacy of CAD/CAM technology was observed over traditional therapies used in orthodontics. However, it was found that gingival inflammation and the accumulation of bacterial plaque and dental calculus were lower when CAD/CAM retainers were used. When comparing interventions that include CAD/CAM systems with conventional therapies, no significant reduction in care times was found.