Two-year survival analysis of twisted wire fixed retainer versus spiral wire and fiber-reinforced composite retainers: a preliminary explorative single-blind randomized clinical trial

Keeping the teeth in line: Exploring the necessity of bonded retainers in orthodontics: A narrative review

In most recent studies, long-term retention after orthodontic treatment has been hypothesized that may be necessary to maintain the stability of the dentition and avoid post-treatment changes. The bonded fixed retainer is characterized by its clinical effectiveness, patient acceptance, and lack of patient complaints as compared with a removable retainer. An electronic database (such as PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ResearchGate) has been collected using specific keywords. Of the 152 articles, only randomized clinical trials that investigated different types of fixed retainers or compared fixed with removable retainers were illustrated in tables and included in this review. The present review has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of the bonded fixed retainer, types, material, bonding methods, and how to improve its the success rate, besides the importance of new technology in fixed orthodontic retention.

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.

Trends and perspectives on the commercialization of bioactive glasses

At least 25 bioactive glass (BG) medical devices have been approved for clinical use by global regulatory agencies. Diverse applications include monolithic implants, bone void fillers, dentin hypersensitivity agents, wound dressing, and cancer therapeutics. The morphology and delivery systems of bioactive glasses have evolved dramatically since the first devices based on 45S5 Bioglass®. The particle size of these devices has generally decreased with the evolution of bioactive glass technology but primarily lies in the micron size range. Morphologies have progressed from glass monoliths to granules, putties, and cements, allowing medical professionals greater flexibility and control. Compositions of these commercial materials have primarily relied on silicate-based systems with varying concentrations of sodium, calcium, and phosphorus. Furthermore, therapeutic ions have been investigated and show promise for greater control of biological stimulation of genetic processes and increased bioactivity. Some commercial products have exploited the borate and phosphate-based compositions for soft tissue repair/regeneration. Mesoporous BGs also promise anticancer therapies due to their ability to deliver drugs in combination with radiotherapy, photothermal therapy, and magnetic hyperthermia. The objective of this article is to critically discuss all clinically approved bioactive glass products. Understanding essential regulatory standards and rules for production is presented through a review of the commercialization process. The future of bioactive glasses, their promising applications, and the challenges are outlined. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Bioactive glasses have evolved into a wide range of products used to treat various medical conditions. They are non-equilibrium, non-crystalline materials that have been designed to induce specific biological activity. They can bond to bone and soft tissues and contribute to their regeneration. They are promising in combating pathogens and malignancies by delivering drugs, inorganic therapeutic ions, and heat for magnetic-induced hyperthermia or laser-induced phototherapy. This review addresses each bioactive glass product approved by regulatory agencies for clinical use. A review of the commercialization process is also provided with insight into critical regulatory standards and guidelines for manufacturing. Finally, a critical evaluation of the future of bioactive glass development, applications, and challenges are discussed.

Analysis of the effectiveness of the fiber-reinforced composite lingual retainer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontic fixed retainers are preferred as they depend less on patient compliance. Recently, researchers tried to use fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) to replace the multistranded stainless-steel wire (MSW) of the fixed retainers to enhance the mechanical properties and esthetics. This systematic review aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the FRC retainers.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases (May 1, 2021), including Medline, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical controlled trials were included. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials and risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias in RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. The outcomes were pooled using Review Manager 5.4. The primary outcome of this review was teeth relapse, and the secondary outcomes were bonded retainer failure rate, adverse effect on oral health, and patient's satisfaction.

RESULTS

Eleven out of 99 studies, which included 873 participants, were used in this review, with the follow-up ranging from 6 months to 6 years. Ten studies compared the FRC retainers with MSW retainers, and 1 study compared FRC retainers with a different fiber material. Ten studies were RCT, and 1 was non-RCT. There was 0.39 less relapse with the FRC retainers than with MSW retainers (mean difference, -0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to -0.37; P <0.00001). There was no statistically significant difference in the failure rate between the FRC and MSW with the whole retainer as an outcome unit risk ratio of 1.72 (95% CI, 0.57-5.14; P = 0.33) or with the teeth an as outcome unit risk ratio of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.47-1.52; P = 0.58). There was insufficient evidence to conduct the meta-analysis of the adverse effect on oral health and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence is available to suggest that the effectiveness of the FRC is comparable to the MSW with no significant difference in the failure rate. However, we have very low certainty on these results. It is worth conducting future robust clinical studies to assess the effectiveness of FRC retainers with long follow-up.

What causes failure of fixed orthodontic retention? - systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic retention aims to maintain optimal teeth positions after active treatment. The stability is affected by numerous factors, including patients' individual features, thus retention should be adjusted in the most optimal way. Bonding a retainer makes retention less dependent on patient's compliance.

QUESTIONS ARISE

What wire or fiber splint type provides the best treatment stability? What materials should be used to bond the wire or fiber splint? Should be the bonding procedure be direct or indirect? The aim of the study is to assess and synthesize available controlled trials investigating failures of fixed retainers.

METHODS

Literature searches of free text and MeSH terms were performed in Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and PubMed Central in order to find studies, referring to failures of fixed retention (12th February 2021). The keywords were: ("orthodontic retainers AND failure AND wire"). The framework of this systematic review according to PICO was: Population: orthodontic patients; Intervention: fixed orthodontic retainer bonding; Comparison: Different protocols of fixed orthodontic retention applied; Outcomes: failure rate, survival rate. Three different specific scales from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook were used, according to each study type. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of retention using fiber reinforced composite and multistranded steel wire.

RESULTS

The search identified 177 potential articles: 114 from PubMed, 41 from Scopus, 20 from Web of Science and 2 from Embase. After excluding studies inconsistent with selection criteria, 21 studies were included and subjected to qualitative analysis. The main outcome investigated was failure rate. This systematic review has some potential limitations due to the heterogeneity of design between included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

No retainer is proved to guarantee a perfect stability of dental alignment. The retainer should be bonded to all adherent teeth, preferably with additional use of bonding resin. No wire or fiber splint present superior characteristics concerning failure rate. Fiber reinforced composite retention is more sensitive to operator skills, and with imperfect bonding technique, failure rate is much higher. During the first 6 months after bonding retainer the patient should be under frequent control. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO database with the number CRD42021233406.

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.

Shear Bond Strength of the Metal Bracket to Zirconium Ceramic Restoration Treated by the Nd: YAG Laser and Other Methods: An In Vitro Microscopic Study

Introduction: Providing reliable bonding of the bracket base and the zirconia surface is required to apply orthodontic force. The purpose of this scientific experiment was to evaluate the efficacy of three different methods of surface preparation for Zirconia, including surface roughening, sandblasting and the Nd: YAG laser, in the shear bond strength (SBS) of the orthodontic brackets. Methods: Fifty-four discs of zirconia were divided into three groups of 18: A) Hydrofluoric acid etching, B) sandblasting, and C) Nd: irradiation using the power of 1.5 W for 10 seconds. After bonding the brackets, the samples were slowly thermo-cycled (1000 times) for 24 hours. The SBS test was performed by a universal testing machine at a head speed of 0.5 mm/min. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored at a magnification of 10 in the stereo microscope. All data were collected and analyzed using the variance, Kruskal-Wallis, Tukey, Don, and Weibull tests (α = 0.05). Results: The HF acid etching group (6.11± 0.94 MPa) had the highest SBS, which was followed by the laser group (6 ± 0.61 MPa) and the sandblast group (3.1080 ± 0.82 MPa). There was a significant statistical difference between the laser and HF groups and the sandblast group (P < 0.05) and no significant difference between the HF group and the laser group (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Based on the obtained bond strength, the Nd: YAG laser with a power of 1.5 W could be a substitute treatment method for the HF acid-etching.

Clinical comparison between Multi-Stranded Wires and Single strand Ribbon wires used for lingual fixed retainers

BACKGROUND

Long-term retention with fixed retainers with a high success rate seems to be a reasonable solution to minimize or prohibit relapse of orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty patients between 13 and 30 years old were recruited for this study. The 0.0175 stainless steel twisted wire (G&H Orthodontics, USA) was compared with a single-strand ribbon titanium lingual retainer wire (Retainium, Reliance orthodontics, USA) was used. When treatment was completed, the retainers were bonded from canine to canine in the mandibular arch of the participants. In the follow-up visits, the patients were recalled every 3 months during the 24 months. Detachments, the time of debonding, and side effects were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by a blinded statistician using a statistical package for Social Science (SPSS, Version20). After descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to measure the survival rates of each retainer. P value < 0.05 was considered as significant.

RESULTS

Finally, 138 patients who received twisted wire splint and 112 patients who received ribbon wire were included in the analysis. The average duration of success was about 23 months for twisted wire and ribbon wire, according to the Kaplan-Meier estimates. The analysis showed no significant overall difference between the treatments (p = 0.13). Failure rates in terms of detachments in all groups occurred at the enamel junction, and it was 25 in twisted retainer group (18.1%) and was 10 in ribbon retainer group (8.9%); the Kaplan-Meier analysis test detected a significant difference in the failure rates between the groups (p = 0/006).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the conventional twisted stainless steel wire and single-strand titanium flat metal ribbon wire as fixed orthodontic retainers have the same clinical effects, it was shown that the ribbon wire has less failure in terms of detachments.

Travel beyond Clinical Uses of Fiber Reinforced Composites (FRCs) in Dentistry: A Review of Past Employments, Present Applications, and Future Perspectives

The reinforcement of resins with short or long fibers has multiple applications in various engineering and biomedical fields. The use of fiber reinforced composites (FRCs) in dentistry has been described in the literature from more than 40 years. In vitro studies evaluated mechanical properties such as flexural strength, fatigue resistance, fracture strength, layer thickness, bacterial adhesion, bonding characteristics with long fibers, woven fibers, and FRC posts. Also, multiple clinical applications such as replacement of missing teeth by resin-bonded adhesive fixed dental prostheses of various kinds, reinforcement elements of dentures or pontics, and direct construction of posts and cores have been investigated. In orthodontics, FRCs have been used also for active and passive orthodontic applications, such as anchorage units, en-masse movement units, and postorthodontic tooth retention. FRCs have been extensively tested in the literature, but today the advances in new technologies involving the introduction of nanofillers or new fibers along with understanding the design principles of FRC devices open new fields of research for these materials both in vitro and in vivo. The present review describes past and present applications of FRCs and introduces some future perspectives on the use of these materials.

Bending Properties of Fiber-Reinforced Composites Retainers Bonded with Spot-Composite Coverage

Orthodontic and periodontal splints are prepared with round or flat metallic wires. As these devices cannot be used in patients with allergy to metals or with aesthetic demands, fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) retainers have been introduced. Stiffness of FRC materials could reduce physiologic tooth movement. In order to lower rigidity of conventional FRC retainers, a modified construction technique that provided a partial (spot) composite coverage of the fiber has been tested and compared with metallic splints and full-bonded FRCs. Flat (Bond-a-Braid, Reliance Orthodontic Products) and round (Penta-one 0155, Masel Orthodontics) stainless steel splints, conventional FRC splints, and experimental spot-bonded FRC retainers (Everstick Ortho, StickTech) were investigated. The strength to bend the retainers at 0.1 mm deflection and at maximum load was measured with a modified Frasaco model. No significant differences were reported among load values of stainless steel wires and experimental spot-bonded FRC retainers at 0.1 mm deflection. Higher strength values were recoded for conventional full-bonded FRCs. At maximum load no significant differences were reported between metallic splints (flat and round) and experimental spot-bonded FRCs, and no significant differences were reported between spot- and full-bonded FRC splints. These results encourage further tests in order to evaluate clinical applications of experimental spot-bonded FRC retainers.

Spot-Bonding and Full-Bonding Techniques for Fiber Reinforced Composite (FRC) and Metallic Retainers

Fiber reinforced Composite (FRC) retainers have been introduced as an aesthetic alternative to conventional metallic splints, but present high rigidity. The purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate bending and fracture loads of FRC splints bonded with conventional full-coverage of the FRC with a composite compared with an experimental bonding technique with a partial (spot-) resin composite cover. Stainless steel rectangular flat, stainless steel round, and FRC retainers were tested at 0.2 and 0.3 mm deflections and at a maximum load. Both at 0.2 and 0.3 mm deflections, the lowest load required to bend the retainer was recorded for spot-bonded stainless steel flat and round wires and for spot-bonded FRCs, and no significant differences were identified among them. Higher force levels were reported for full-bonded metallic flat and round splints and the highest loads were recorded for full-bonded FRCs. At the maximum load, no significant differences were reported among spot- and full-bonded metallic splints and spot-bonded FRCs. The highest loads were reported for full bonded FRCs. The significant decrease in the rigidity of spot-bonded FRC splints if compared with full-bonded retainers suggests further tests in order to propose this technique for clinical use, as they allow physiologic tooth movement, thus presumably reducing the risk of ankylosis.

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.