Tooth positioners and their effects on treatment outcome

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.

Increased tooth mobility after fixed orthodontic appliance treatment can be selectively utilized for case refinement via positioner therapy - a pilot study

Background

Increased tooth mobility persists after fixed orthodontic appliance removal, which is therapeutically utilized for post-treatment finishing with positioners. As such a fine adjustment is only required for selected teeth, the aim of this pilot study was to investigate tooth mobility in vivo on corrected and uncorrected subgroups under positioner therapy.

Methods

Mobility was measured on upper teeth of 10 patients (mean age 16.8) by applying loadings for 0.1, 1.0 and 10.0 s with a novel device directly after multibracket appliance debonding as much as 2d, 1, 2 and 6 weeks later. Positioners were inserted at day 2. Specimens were divided into Group C (teeth corrected via positioner), Group N (uncorrected teeth adjacent to teeth from group C), and Group U (uncorrected teeth in an anchorage block). Untreated individuals served as controls (n = 10, mean age 22.4). Statistics were performed via Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Welch’s unequal variances t-test for comparisons between groups. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

After 1 week, tooth mobility in Group U almost resembled controls (13.0–15.7 N), and reached physiological values after 6 weeks (17.4 N vs. 17.3 N in controls). Group C (9.0–13.4 N) and Group N (9.2–14.7 N) maintained increased mobility after 6 weeks. Tooth mobility was generally higher by reason of long loading durations (10.0 s).

Conclusions

Positioner therapy can selectively utilized increased tooth mobility upon orthodontic fixed appliance treatment for case refinements. Here, uncorrected teeth in anchorage blocks are not entailed by unwanted side effects and recover after 6 weeks post treatment. Corrected teeth and their neighbors exhibit enhanced mobility even after 6 weeks, which represents a necessity for the proper correction of tooth position, and concurrently arouses the requirement for an adequate retention protocol.

Mandibular alignment changes after full-fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Although post-treatment mandibular alignment has been extensively investigated, the findings remain controversial.

Objectives

The objective was to assess mandibular alignment changes, as measured by the irregularity index, of patients who underwent full-fixed orthodontic treatment and were followed up at least 1 year after retention.

Search methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, in addition, the reference lists of included studies, were screened. The search was conducted up to April 2018.

Selection criteria

The study designs included both interventional and observational studies of orthodontic patients who received either extraction or non-extraction treatment.

Data collection and analysis

The interventional studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. The quality of the observational studies was evaluated using National Institution of Health quality assessment tools. The first two authors independently applied the eligibility criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any conflicts were resolved with consensus discussion with the third author.

Results

The search retrieved 11 326 articles, 170 of which were assessed for eligibility. There were 44 studies included in the qualitative assessments and 30 in the meta-analyses. The studies included 1 randomized control trial (RCT) and 43 observational studies. The RCT was judged to have a high risk of bias and all of the observational studies had either fair or poor quality. The meta-analysis was based on studies judged to be of fair quality, including a total of 1859 patients. All meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models. The standardized mean difference between post-treatment and post-retention irregularity was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.04–1.40) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63–1.07) after extraction and non-extraction treatments, respectively. There was a substantial heterogeneity for the extraction (I2 = 75.2%) and non-extraction (I2 = 70.1%) studies. The follow-up duration (1–10 versus 10–20 years) explained 33% of the heterogeneity, with longer follow-up studies showing more irregularity.

Limitations

The quality of evidence provided by the studies was low. There was a risk of publication bias, and the search was limited to English language.

Conclusions and implications

Post-treatment mandibular irregularity increases are limited. Irregularity increases are slightly greater in patients treated with mandibular premolars extractions, and in patients followed up over longer periods of time.

Registration

The study protocol was not registered.