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

The Micromechanical Properties and Surface Roughness of Orthodontic Retainer Wires-An In Vitro Analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the large variety of retainer wires available, no studies could be found comparing the micromechanical properties and surface roughness of different retainer wires. Such characteristics affect the survival of the fixed retainer in terms of both fracture resistance and resistance to debonding from the tooth. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine and compare those characteristics in popular retainer wires.

METHODS

six different popular orthodontic retainer wires were subjected to instrumental indentation based on the Oliver and Pharr method. The geometric surface structure was analysed using a non-contact profilometer.

RESULTS

stainless steel wires had a higher hardness and a higher elastic modulus compared to titanium wires and white gold chain. The titanium wire and the white gold chain showed much more roughness than other wires.

CONCLUSIONS

stainless steel wires are the most resistant, considering both the shape retention capacity and the ability to resist abrasive wear. The titanium wire showed the lowest hardness and, thus, the highest susceptibility to deformation. Bond-a-braid, Retainium and Orthoflex white gold are more resistant to fracture than other steel wires. Titanium wire and chain retainer wires have more roughness, which is a great advantage in terms of mechanical adhesion to composite materials.

Orthodontic treatment demand for fixed treatment and aligners among young adults in middle Europe and South America - a questionnaire study

BACKGROUND

Patients experiencing any malocclusion, may desire for treatment. However, there is no scientific information orthodontic treatment demand and the knowledge of young adults about orthodontic treatment. The aim of the study was to assess orthodontic treatment demand in young adults from Poland and Chile, their previous orthodontic experience and their knowledge on fixed and aligner orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

The target group comprised people aged 18-30. The sample size was estimated as above 400 for each country. The survey was carried out in Polish and Spanish within 3 months and consisted of 25 questions delivered via social media. Comparisons were made between countries, age subgroups and gender.

RESULTS

The response rate was 1,99%, what stands for 1092 responses, 670 from Chile and 422 from Poland, respectively. The percentage of young adults who were already treated was 42,9% in Poland and 25,0% in Chile. The ones planning to have orthodontic treatment within a year counted for 11,8% in Poland and 5,3% in Chile. Most young adults who want to be treated (20,6%) rely on doctor's recommendation on type of appliance while 14,7% of all respondents are interested solely in aligners. Most respondents have heard about aligners (58%). Direct provider-to-customer service without a doctor is not acceptable, neither in Poland (85,1%) nor in Chile (64,8%). Most young adults provided incorrect answers referring various aspects of aligner treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In both countries, patients demand to be treated and monitored by the orthodontist. A high percentage of patients want to be treated exclusively with aligners. Direct-to-consumer orthodontics does not seem attractive to patients. Young adults do not have adequate knowledge referring to aligner treatment. Many people want to be treated despite a previous orthodontic treatment.

Three-dimensional microanalysis of tooth movement during the first 6 months of orthodontic double retention

INTRODUCTION

This study performed a 3-dimensional analysis of tooth movement during orthodontic retention to assess the effectiveness of double retention (fixed and removable) in preventing undesired tooth movement.

METHODS

One hundred randomly selected patients were included at the initiation of double orthodontic retention with fixed retainers and vacuum-formed splints (recommended to be worn 22 h/d) in both arches. Intraoral scans were performed directly (T0), 1 month (n = 88), 3 months (T2) (n = 78), and 6 months (T3) (n = 66) after retainer bonding. Nine reference points were marked on each tooth in every patient. Subsequent scans were superimposed, and point displacement was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the R statistical software (version 4.2.2; R Core Team, Vienna, Austria).

RESULTS

Sample size calculation determined at least 55 patients were needed. The total dropout between T0 and T3 was 34 patients (did not show up for appointment). The median absolute displacement value of a single point between T0 and T3 was 0.015 mm. The most stable teeth were mandibular central incisors, whereas the least stable were mandibular molars. Most tooth displacements occurred between T0 and T2, then slowed down significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Double orthodontic retention prevents major tooth displacements in most patients during the first 6 months of retention; however, larger, unpredictable single-tooth displacement may occur in individual patients.

Diagnostic compatibility of various fixed orthodontic retainers for head/neck MRI and dental MRI

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic MRI compatibility of different fixed orthodontic retainers using a high-resolution 3D-sequence optimized for artifact reduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Maxillary and mandibular retainers made of five different materials were scanned in vitro and in vivo at 3 T MRI using an MSVAT-SPACE sequence. In vitro, artifact volumes were determined for all maxillary and mandibular retainers (AVmax; AVmand). In vivo, two independent observers quantified the extent of artifacts based on the visibility of 124 dental and non-dental landmarks using a five-point rating scale (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = acceptable, 4 = poor, 5 = not visible).

RESULTS

Rectangular-steel retainers caused the largest artifacts (AVmax/AVmand: 18,060/15,879 mm3) and considerable diagnostic impairment in vivo (mean landmark visibility score ± SD inside/outside the retainer areas: 4.8 ± 0.8/2.9 ± 1.6). Smaller, but diagnostically relevant artifacts were observed for twistflex steel retainers (437/6317 mm3, 3.1 ± 1.7/1.3 ± 0.7). All retainers made of precious-alloy materials produced only very small artifact volumes (titanium grade 1: 70/46 mm3, titanium grade 5: 47/35 mm3, gold: 23/21 mm3) without any impact on image quality in vivo (each retainer: visibility scores of 1.0 ± 0.0 for all landmarks inside and outside the retainer areas).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to steel retainers, titanium and gold retainers are fully compatible for both head/neck and dental MRI when using MSVAT-SPACE.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study demonstrates that titanium and gold retainers do not impair the diagnostic quality of head/neck and dental MRI when applying an appropriate artifact-reduction technique. Steel retainers, however, are not suitable for dental MRI and can severely impair image quality in head/neck MRI of the oral cavity.

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.

Bruxism’s Implications on Fixed Orthodontic Retainer Adhesion

Background: Fixed retainers assist in maintaining the outcomes of orthodontic treatment. Fixed retention may be affected by bruxism. Objective: Evaluate two adhesives (an ormocer and a flowable composite) used for fixed orthodontic retention in simulated bruxism settings, compared to regular mastication, using a dual axis chewing simulator. Methods: Eighty human teeth were used. Periodontal tissues were simulated and exposed to 120,000 mechanical cycles, corresponding to 6 months of clinical service. Each set of two teeth was supplied with a pre-shaped, fixed, multi-braided, stainless steel wire retainer, in 1.5 cm portions, to establish passive contact with the lingual surface of the teeth. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was used to evaluate the shear bond strength. A stereomicroscope was used to assess the micro-infiltration. Results: There was no significant difference in the mean value of micro-infiltration between adhesives in the mastication group but in the bruxism group. During testing, one composite sample (ARI score 1) was broken in the mastication group, while three ormocer samples (ARI score 2) and one composite sample (ARI score 1) were broken in the bruxism group. Conclusions: The mean value for micro-infiltration in composite (0.31) was more than double that in ormocer (0.13).