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.

Patients' perception of orthodontic retainers: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic retainers are widely used to prevent relapses after orthodontic treatment; however, evidence about patients' perceptions of retainers is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' perception of orthodontic retainers. SEARCH METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, LIVIVO, Cochrane Library, and gray literature (Google Scholar) were searched without date or language restrictions. A manual search of the reference lists of the included articles was also performed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies comparing patients' perceptions of wearing orthodontic retainers were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: According to the study design, the risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed using RoB 2.0 or ROBINS-I. The level of evidence was assessed through the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria. After the RoB assessment, 12 randomized controlled trials presented a high RoB, and 4 non-randomized controlled trials presented a moderate RoB. The certainty of evidence was classified as very low for the four assessed outcomes. The studies generally reported an initial temporary negative impact of orthodontic retainers. Different esthetic, functional, and ease-of-use advantages are reported using removable and fixed retainers. A quantitative analysis was not performed due to the considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSION: The current evidence, although very limited, suggests that orthodontic retainers have an initial negative impact related to discomfort and functional limitations, but they seem to regress over time. There is a preference for thermoplastic over Hawley-type retainers. However, thermoplastic retainers cause different functional difficulties, and bonded retainers present the advantage of affecting speech function less than orthodontic removable retainers, although they can facilitate oral hygiene problems. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022306665).

Survival and failure rate of lower lingual bonded retainers: A retrospective cohort evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to evaluate the survival rates for lower lingual retainers (LLRs) and to establish a correlation between patients' treatment-related factors (age, sex, malocclusion, appliance used for treatment, teeth bonded, retention protocols) to the survival of LLRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 765 subjects [474 females and 291 males: mean age = 24.29 ± 10.67 years] between 2013 and 2022 were included. A customized data collection form was utilized to gather the data from the electronic health record (EHR) of subjects. Patient-related factors, crowding or spacing, deep bite or open bite and duration of treatment were extracted from patients' files. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used for the survival function, whereas Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to associate risk factors with retainer survival. RESULTS: 328 (42.9%) subjects had their LLRs failed, and the survival period was on average 17.37 ± 22.85 months. On the other hand, the follow-up period for the retainers that did not fail was on average 47.19 ± 23.66 months. 192 (28.3%) subjects had segment failure (retainer detached from 3 teeth or less), while 51 (7.5%) subjects had failures in more than 3 teeth (complete). None of the evaluated clinical variables were significantly associated with LLRs failure except for the bite category (P = .013) and the appliance used for treatment (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Success rate for LLRs was 57.1% over 47.19 months, failure rate was 42.9% over 17.37 months. The presence of deep bite and treatment with aligners were significantly associated with increased failure rate.

Effects of fixed retainers on gingival recession - a 10-year retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The aetiology of gingival recessions is not fully understood, and no evidence has yet emerged of a single predisposing factor that instigates this apical shift of the gingival margin. Nonetheless, both fixed retainers and orthodontic treatment have been cited as potential risk factors. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of orthodontic treatment and orthodontic fixed retainers on gingival recessions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In total, 105 patients at the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Gothenburg who had undergone orthodontic treatment between 1995 - 2003 were included in this study. Intraoral photographs of the anterior segment and study casts acquired at baseline (pre-treatment), post-treatment and at the 10-year follow-up were used as recorded measurements of gingival recession and orthodontic treatment. At the 10-year follow-up, the patients were divided into two groups based on: long-term (10 years) presence of a fixed retainer [orthodontic treatment and retainer (OR) group; N = 76]; and short-term (<5 years) presence of a fixed retainer [orthodontic treatment (O) group; N = 57]. These groups were compared to a control group (C) of untreated subjects (N = 29). RESULTS: In the anterior segment, gingival recessions were not present at baseline and post-treatment between the two orthodontically treated groups. At the 10-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between the two orthodontically treated groups and the controls. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic treatment per se does not increase the risk for gingival recessions, nor does the use of fixed retainers following orthodontic treatment.

The dark side of fixed retainers: Case series.

This article focuses on on the presentation and management 9 adult patients who experienced complications because of their maxillary or mandibular fixed retainers 5-33 years after orthodontic treatment. Such complications include the development of an anterior crossbite, open bite, incisal cant, and twist- and x-effects. The detrimental effects on periodontal health were highlighted, especially in the mandibular canines. A range of fixed retainer types was identified, including flexible spiral wire bonded to 4 maxillary or 6 mandibular anterior teeth, rigid wire bonded to mandibular canines only and fiber-reinforced composite fixed retainer. Orthodontic retreatment was necessary in all patients using fixed appliances or clear aligners. Radiographic findings from cone-beam computed tomography or orthopantomogram before and after retreatment are presented when available. Despite the improvement of teeth position clinically, the cone-beam computed tomography scans taken directly after the completion of orthodontic retreatment did not show notable improvement with regards to root proximity to the cortical plates. The prevention of further complications was highlighted, including the use of dual retention, remote monitoring, frequent follow-up appointments and the importance of developing clear guidelines for monitoring patients in retention for treating clinicians and general dentists to promote early detection of adverse changes.

Stability, survival, and patient satisfaction with CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 6-month follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this two-arm parallel two-centre randomized controlled trial was to compare computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers (FRs) in terms of stability over 6 months. Secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Patients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. Retainers were bonded at the end of orthodontic treatment (T0), and patients were recalled after 1 (T1), 3 (T3), and 6 (T6) months. First-time retainer failures were recorded and digital impressions were taken. Arch widths and lengths, as well as Little's Irregularity Index (LII), were measured. Additionally, patients answered satisfaction questionnaires. Linear mixed models were applied for measurements and patient satisfaction. Survival analyses were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves, along with Cox-regression modelling. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): Ninety in the CAD/CAM group and 91 in the conventional group. Three subjects dropped out at baseline, as they did not attend any of the follow-up appointments.168 patients attended the T6 visit. There were no significant differences in arch dimensions between T0 and T6, whilst the LII was different only in the CAD/CAM group (mean difference: 0.2 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.1 to 0.4; P < 0.001). Within 6 months, 39 upper retainers (19 out of 88 CAD/CAM and 20 out of 90 conventional retainers) and 52 lower retainers failed (26 out of 88 CAD/CAM and 26 out of 90 conventional retainers), with no significant difference between the survival of both types of retainers (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: upper arch: 0.99 [P =0.99], lower arch: 0.93 [P = 0.80]). There were no significant changes in patient satisfaction between the groups. No harms were observed. CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional retainers after 6 months. There was no difference in failures and in patient satisfaction between both types of FRs. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.

Post-treatment stability after 5 years of retention with vacuum-formed and bonded retainers-a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Retention after orthodontic treatment is still a challenge and more evidence about post-treatment stability and patients' perceptions of different retention strategies is needed. OBJECTIVES: This trial compares removable vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) with bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers (CTC) after 5 years of retention. TRIAL DESIGN: A single centre two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This trial included 104 adolescent patients, randomized into two groups (computer-generated), using sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes. All patients were treated with fixed appliances in both jaws with and without tooth extractions. Patients in the intervention group received a VFR in the mandible (n = 52), and patients in the active comparator group received a CTC (n = 52). Both groups had a VFR in the maxilla. Dental casts at debond (T1), after 6 months (T2), after 18 months (T3), and after 5 years (T4) were digitized and analysed regarding Little's Irregularity Index (LII), overbite, overjet, arch length, and intercanine and intermolar width. The patients completed questionnaires at T1, T2, T3, and T4. RESULTS: Post-treatment changes between T1 and T4 in both jaws were overall small. In the maxilla, LII increased significantly (median difference: 0.3 mm), equally in both groups. In the mandible, LII increased significantly in the group VFR/VFR (median difference: 0.6 mm) compared to group VFR/CTC (median difference: 0.1 mm). In both groups, overjet was stable, overbite increased, and arch lengths decreased continuously. Intercanine widths and intermolar width in the mandible remained stable, but intermolar width in the maxilla decreased significantly. No differences were found between groups. Regardless of retention strategy, patients were very satisfied with the treatment outcome and their retention appliances after 5 years. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to perform blinded assessments of digital models at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Post-treatment changes in both jaws were small. Anterior alignment in the mandible was more stable with a bonded CTC retainer compared to a removable VFR after 5 years of retention. Patients were equally satisfied with fixed and removable retention appliances. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03070444).

Failure frequency of fixed mandibular retainers after pre-treatment of the enamel surface with pumice versus sandblasting-a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To compare retainer survival, periodontal health, and caries implications of fixed lower retainers bonded after pre-treatment of the enamel surface with either pumice or sandblasting. TRIAL DESIGN: Two-arm parallel-group, two-center randomized controlled clinical trial. METHODS: One hundred sixty patients (101 females, 59 males, mean age: 17.9) requiring mandibular retainers were consecutively recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to have pre-treatment of the enamel surface with either pumice (n = 80) or sandblasting (n = 80). The primary outcome was retainer survival at 3 (T1) and 12 months (T2) control. Secondary outcomes were carious lesions and periodontal health: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), calculus index (CI), and probing depth (PD). The randomization sequence was generated using an online randomization and allocation concealment was secured by contacting the sequence generator for treatment assignment. Blinding was not possible at T0 due to the nature of the intervention. Statistical analyses were carried out using the t-test, Fisher's exact test, repeated measure analysis of variance, and log rank test. RESULTS: Overall, the risk of bonding failure at T1 was 6.7 per cent and at T2 6.9 per cent. There were no statistically significant differences in failure rate between the two groups, neither at T1 (P = 1.000) nor at T2 (P = 0.360). No statistically significant differences were found for the intercanine periodontal indices GI, PI, CI, PD, and caries between the two groups at T0 and T1. At T2, significantly more gingivitis and plaque were seen in the sandblasting group (P = 0.05 and P = 0.047, respectively) compared with the pumice group. Calculus increased during the follow-up period in both groups (P ≤ 0.001) as well as plaque levels (P ≤ 0.001 and P = 0.025, respectively). No harm was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Enamel sandblasting prior to bonding mandibular retainers is not better at preventing bonding failure. REGISTRATION: 275767 (https://www.researchweb.org/is/sverige).

Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: Comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 5-year follow-up of a single-center randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This 2-arm parallel trial aimed to assess the number of failures of mandibular fixed retainers bonded with direct and indirect bonding methods at a 5-year follow-up and investigate the stability of intercanine and interpremolar distances. METHODS: Consecutive patients from the clinic of the University of Geneva (Switzerland) were randomly allocated to either direct or indirect bonding of a mandibular fixed retainer at the end of orthodontic treatment. Inclusion criteria included the presence of all mandibular incisors and canines; and the absence of active caries, restorations, fractures, or periodontal disease of these teeth. The patients were randomized in blocks of 4 using an online randomization service, with allocation concealment secured by contacting the sequence generator for assignment. Two and 5 years (T5) after bonding the retainers, the patients were recalled, and impressions were taken. The primary outcome was the 5-year survival of the mandibular fixed retainer bonded with both bonding methods. The secondary outcomes were the intercanine and interpremolar distances and the assessment of unexpected posttreatment changes (ie, changes in torque and/or rotations of the mandibular incisors and canines). Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, and a Cox proportional hazard regression model was fitted for bonding type, age, and treatment. Linear mixed models were fitted to intercanine and interpremolar distances: bonding type, time, age, and treatment were modeled as outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. At T5, 6 patients without previous failure were lost to follow-up from each group. At T5, the fixed retainer was debonded in 14 patients (54%) for each group. The hazard ratio of indirect bonding to direct bonding was 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-4.60; P = 0.91); there was no statistically significant difference in survival between the groups. Regarding intercanine and interpremolar distances, none of the tested prognostic factors reached statistical significance. Unexpected posttreatment changes were observed in 6 failure-free patients, all bonded with the direct bonding method. Only 1 patient required debonding of the fixed retainer. No other serious harms were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year survival rate for both direct and indirect bonding methods was 46%, without a statistically significant difference between bonding methods. Bonded retainers were effective in maintaining intercanine and interpremolar distances. Unexpected posttreatment changes were only observed with retainers bonded with the direct bonding method. REGISTRATION: The trial was not registered. PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement. FUNDING: No funding or conflict of interest to be declared.

The effect of different bonded retainer wires on tooth mobility immediately after orthodontic treatment.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the immediate influence of four commonly used retainer wires on tooth mobility following orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients after orthodontic treatment were assigned to four study groups (n = 20 in each group). Groups were provided with directly bonded fixed retainers-0.0150″ (group A), 0.0175″ (group B), 0.016 × 0.022″ (group C), and 0.0215″ (group D). Tooth mobility was measured using the Periotest device at two times-after removal of fixed appliance (T1) and after bonding of the retainer (T2). Values of tooth mobility, 'Periotest values', were analysed between groups and compared with the physiologic tooth mobility in a control group of untreated patients (n = 65). Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U, Dunn's test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Tooth mobility after orthodontic treatment was significantly increased. While canines remained within normal range of tooth mobility, values for incisors increased on average to the first degree of tooth mobility (slight mobility). Logistic regression analysis identified age as a significant predictor for increased tooth mobility (P = 0.032) with odds ratio 1.065 (95% CI 1.005-1.128), with mobility increasing with age. After bonding of the retainer in all four groups, the tooth mobility was reduced to values which were not significantly different form normal physiological values found in the control group (P > 0.05). There were no differences in the amount of change or in tooth mobility values at T2 between the different types of bonded retainers. LIMITATIONS: Age of subjects in the control group was significantly higher than that in the study groups. An alternation method was used instead of randomization to distribute the four different types of retainers. CONCLUSIONS: All of the retainer wires were able to successfully reduce the increased tooth mobility caused by orthodontic treatment to normal levels. The values of tooth mobility after placement of retainers were within the range of physiologic tooth mobility.

Survival analysis of three types of maxillary and mandibular bonded orthodontic retainers: a retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Retention is an important aspect of orthodontic treatment. This study aimed to analyze the survival of three types of maxillary and mandibular bonded orthodontic retainers. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the records of 118 orthodontic patients (90 females, 28 males, mean age of 22.34 ± 6.44 years) retrieved from a private orthodontic office. Data regarding the retainer failure, dental caries, unwanted tooth movements, maximum pocket depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) recorded at the follow-up sessions were extracted from patient records. Three types of retainer wires namely Bond-A-Braid, Orthoflex, and Retainium were compared regarding the abovementioned parameters. Data were analyzed by ANOVA, Chi-square, Monte-Carlo Chi-square, and Kruskal Wallis tests, the log rank test, and the Cox regression model. RESULTS: The frequency of retainer failure was not significantly different between males and females, different age groups, or different treatment durations (P > 0.05). Wire fracture was the most common failure type in both the maxilla and mandible. Also, the frequency of failure was not significantly different between the maxillary and mandibular retainers (P > 0.05). The frequency of failure, and survival of the three types of retainer wires were not significantly different during a 5-year period (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The three types of orthodontic retainers had comparable survival rates. Their failure rate was not correlated with the age or gender of patients or the treatment duration.

Do orthodontic treatments using fixed appliances and clear aligner achieve comparable quality of occlusal contacts?

Design Non-randomised cohort study.Cohort selection The inclusion criteria comprised patients who finished their comprehensive orthodontic treatment based on a camouflage non-extraction modality using self-ligating orthodontic appliances therapy (SPEED brackets, Canada or Empower brackets, American Ortho, Sheboygan, WI, USA) or clear aligner therapy (Invisalign, Align Technology, San Jose, CA, USA). Patients were recruited from a university orthodontic clinic and a senior orthodontist's practice. The exclusion criteria comprised patients presenting with hypodontia, microdontia, severe periodontal problems, heavily resorted teeth and patients who were using retainers with occlusal coverage.Data analysis Included patients were assessed at three points in time: at the end of active orthodontic treatment and the start of retention phase (T0); at three months post treatment (T3); and at six months post treatment (T6). The following three assessments were done for each patient at T0, T3 and T6: a T-Scan 10 digital occlusal analysis recording into maximum intercuspation position (MIP); self-report about retainer compliance; and self-assessment of occlusal comfort using a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0-10 (0 = very uncomfortable; 10 = maximum comfort).The digital occlusal analysis was performed using a 100µ thin, flexible, horseshoe-shaped Mylar sensor (Novus HD sensor, Tekscan Inc, S. Boston, MA, USA). This sensor contains 1,370 active pressure sensing cells, known as sensels, arranged in a compact grid, shaped as a dental arch. The patients were given instructions on how to bite on the sensor. With the sensor still in the patient's mouth, three consecutive self-intercuspated closure-into-MIP registrations were recorded. If there was a need to repeat the procedure, one minute was given as a rest. If several recordings were done for the same patient in the same visit, the most consistency between the three consecutive intercuspations was used for analysis. In addition, the same sensor was used in T0, T3 and T6, unless the sensor shown excessive wear.The following outcomes were assessed using the digital occlusal analysis: 1) an estimate of occlusal contact surface area based on the activated sensels on the sensor at MIP; 2) the total surface of contacts and the area ratio between anterior (canine to canine) to posterior (premolar to second molar) contact surfaces; 3) the overall relative force distribution based on the by the position of the centre of force (COF); 4) the symmetry of contact distribution was expressed as the percentage of contacts on the right side to the left side (%R/L); and 5) the time-simultaneity of the closure into MIP contacts was calculated by the occlusion time measurement which is the duration between first contact and the time MIP was reached.Results In total, 39 patients were enrolled in the study. The self-ligating fixed appliance group included 25 patients (mean age 18.7 ± 5.2; 6 women, 19 men) while the clear aligner therapy group included 14 patients (mean age 20.6 ± 7.3; ten women, four men). Both groups were matched in terms of age, Angle's classification, symmetry, retention protocol and total number of bonded lingual wires or facial type. However, they were not matched in terms of sex, with more women in the aligner group (p = 0.007). Moreover, eight patients (four in each group) were excluded from the study later on due to a change in the retention protocol or a missed visit. The results showed that self-reported compliance with a Hawley retainer was not different between groups. Occlusal comfort was similar in both groups at treatment completion, with a median score of eight in both groups.The results showed that were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding all outcomes assessed using the digital occlusal analysis. Although the %R/L (normal range = 50% ± 5%) was not significantly different between both groups, neither treatment resulted in ideal occlusal balance (ie symmetry). Indeed, ten patients finished their treatment with subtle asymmetry (%R/L >50 ± 10%), especially in the self-ligating fixed appliance group (nine patients) showing side force differences (five right dominant, four left dominant) versus only one patient in the clear aligner group (left dominant).The COF moved posteriorly in both groups from T0 to T6, in parallel with a decreased ratio of anterior to posterior surface area. A statistically significant difference was observed in the anteroposterior position of COF between sexes, being more anterior in women at all times (p <0.002).Conclusions The quality of the occlusal contacts in MIP was comparable in both groups at T0, T3 and T6. Neither treatment resulted in an ideal occlusal balance (that is, symmetry). Ten patients finished their treatment with subtle occlusal force asymmetry (that is, asymmetric left-to-right side occlusal force distribution), especially in the self-ligating fixed appliance group. Most occlusal changes happened during the first three months of the retention phase, with more posterior contacts forces developing in both groups. In this study, female patients maintained more anterior COF when compared to male patients.

External Root Resorption of Second Molars Due to Impacted Mandibular Third Molars during Orthodontic Retention.

Whether there is a relationship between impaction of the third molars and the onset of crowding remains to be determined, and extraction of third molars after orthodontic treatment is left to the judgement of the practitioner. This report describes a case where a third molar caused external root resorption (ERR) of the mandibular second molar after orthodontic treatment. As ERR of the mandibular second molar was detected after non-extraction orthodontic treatment, the affected tooth was extracted and substituted with the third molar. External root resorption of the second molar occurred despite being determined as low risk given the state of the impacted third molar as observed on a panoramic radiograph obtained at the end of active treatment. The present results indicate that in cases where the mandibular third molar is present, the corpus length is short, and non-extraction treatment has been performed, it is necessary to obtain X-ray images on a regular basis or preventively extract the third molar to avoid ERR of the second molars.

[The quality of life of patients after orthodontic treatment depending on the use of different types of retention appliances]. / Kachestvo zhizni patsientov posle ortodonticheskogo lecheniya v zavisimosti ot ispol'zovaniya razlichnykh vidov retentsionnykh apparatov.

AIM: To assess the impact of the type of retention device on the quality of life of orthodontic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 311 patients were divided into four groups according to age. At the end of active orthodontic treatment, retainers were installed. After 6 months, a questionnaire was conducted using the standard OHIP-14 questionnaire in order to identify the attitude to the equipment used, the presence or absence of relapses and satisfaction with the state of the dental system. RESULTS: The number of relapses in all groups is approximately at the same level, which indicates almost equal opportunities for retainers to retain the achieved result. There is no correlation between the convenience of using a particular type of retainer and the willingness to do so. CONCLUSION: The motivation of patients to use removable or non-removable retention devices to a certain extent depends not only on the type of retainer, but also on the age at which the treatment was performed.

Periodontal status in long-term orthodontic retention patients up to 10 years after treatment - a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess periodontal status in long-term orthodontic retention patients and investigate possible risk indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recessions (GR) and calculus were recorded in 211 patients with or without fixed retainers. RESULTS: Periodontal parameters were within the limits of clinically healthy periodontium. The use of fixed retainers was associated with higher PI in the maxilla (ß = 1.10 [0.37]; p <.05). Older age was associated with higher PI in the mandible (ß = 0.27 [0.11]; p <.05). Smoking was associated with gingival bleeding on both palatal (ß = 0.63 [0.16]; p < .01) and labial sides in the maxilla (ß = 0.46 [0.20]; p <.05). Smoking was also associated with increased prevalence of GR in the mandible (ß = 0.24 [0.07]; p <.01), while use of snuff had similar effect on the labial side in the maxilla (ß = 0.35 [0.08]; p <.01). Higher age (ß = 0.05 [0.02]; p <.05) and the presence of a retainer (ß = 0.23 [0.07]; p < .05) were associated with calculus accumulation on the lingual side in the mandible. CONCLUSION: The present observational study suggest that long-term fixed retainers alone have no detrimental effect on the periodontium. Additional factors may increase the risk of plaque deposits and increased probing pocket depths. Further prosepective studies are needed to confirm the present outcome.

Canine avulsion: An extreme complication of a fixed mandibular lingual retainer.

The use of fixed retainers at the end of a course of orthodontic treatment has become standard practice. The main complication that can occur with fixed retainers is the detachment of the wire from one or more teeth. A less common complication is unwanted tooth movement. This article presents a patient with extreme tooth movement associated with a mandibular fixed retainer. Ten years after orthodontic treatment, a 26-year-old male sought treatment for post-orthodontic movement of the mandibular anterior 6 teeth. Despite the fixed retainer still being attached to all teeth, the apex of the right canine was completed avulsed labially. Severe labial recession was also present on the left lateral incisor. The canine was extracted, and the fixed retainer was removed. Significant root resorption identified on a panoramic radiograph contraindicated any further extensive orthodontic intervention. This case highlights that clinicians and patients should be aware of this rare but serious complication.

Comparative evaluation of salivary microbial levels and periodontal status of patients wearing fixed and removable orthodontic retainers.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate salivary microbial levels and periodontal status in patients using a fixed lingual retainer, a removable vacuum-formed retainer, or a Hawley retainer after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. METHODS: Forty-five patients who finished their orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and were about to start the retention phase were randomly divided into the following 3 groups of 15 individuals each: the fixed lingual retainer group, the vacuum-formed retainer group, and the Hawley retainer group. Periodontal measurements, such as the plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, and bleeding on probing, were obtained at the following 4 time points: at debonding (T0) and 1 week (T1), 5 weeks (T2), and 13 weeks (T3) after debonding. Saliva samples were collected 3 times in total: at T0, T2, and T3. A quantitative analysis for Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus casei was performed with the use of real-time polymerase chain reaction. The Kruskal-Wallis test and 1-way analysis of variance were used for the statistical comparisons of the groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in salivary S mutans and L casei levels was found among the 3 groups (P >0.05). They showed no statistically significant differences in plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing, and probing depth values (P >0.05). All periodontal parameters showed statistically significant decreases from T0 to T3 in all 3 groups (P <0.001). The S mutans and L casei levels were decreased significantly from T2 to T3 in the lingual retainer and Hawley retainer groups, whereas they decreased significantly from T0 to T3 in the vacuum-formed retainer group. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed and removable orthodontic retainers do not differ in salivary S mutans and L casei levels and periodontal status. With all retainers, regardless of whether they are fixed or removable, oral hygiene improved after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.

Periodontal effects and survival rates of different mandibular retainers: comparison of bonding technique and wire thickness.

OBJECTIVES: This non-randomized prospective cohort study aimed to compare the periodontal effects and success rates of mandibular canine-to-canine fixed retainers having different bonding techniques and wire thicknesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hundred patients requiring retention after orthodontic treatment were assigned to five study groups (n = 20 in each group, 61 females/39 males, median age range 16.5-18.0 years). Retention was provided by 0.0215"/direct, 0.0215"/indirect, 0.0175"/direct, 0.0175"/indirect bonded multistranded wires and removable Essix appliances. The primary and secondary outcomes were periodontal effects and success rates. The patients were examined in 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months follow-up appointments. Plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per retainer wire and survival of retainer wires were analysed by Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between the fixed retainer (FR) and Essix (E) groups in gingival index scores at 1 month [mean FR: 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-1.44), mean E: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.14-0.69), mean difference: 0.73, P < 0.01], 3 months [mean FR: 0.97/1.01 (95% CI: 0.65-1.30/0.72-1.30), mean E: 0.52 (95% CI: 0.25-0.82), mean differences: 0.45/0.49, P < 0.05], 6 months [mean FR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.62-1.27), mean E: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.15-0.58), mean difference: 0.59, P < 0.05] and in bleeding on probing scores at 1 month [mean FR: 3.05 (95% CI: 2.12-3.98), mean E: 1.15 (95% CI: 0.42-1.88), mean difference: 1.90, P < 0.01]. The survival rates of retainer wires were 85 per cent for the 0.0215" direct/indirect and 90 per cent for the 0.0175" direct/indirect groups for the 6 months follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Six months follow-up period, which demonstrates only short-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The periodontal outcomes or survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers were not affected by bonding technique or wire thickness, whereas gingival health improved with Essix retainers but not with fixed retainers.

Hawley retainer and lichenoid reaction: a rare case report.

BACKGROUND: Oral lichenoid reaction (OLR) is a type IV cell-mediated immune response in the oral cavity. There is an established relationship between various dental materials and OLR, but few cases reports reported the occurrence of a lichenoid reaction in association with the use of a Hawley retainer. CASE PRESENTATION: A female patient (twenty years of age) has been complaining of a reddish painful area on the tongue, which started one year ago and has been increasing in size over time. The patient completed orthodontic treatment two years ago and has been using a Hawley retainer for orthodontic retention since then. After performing histological analysis and patch test, the lesion was diagnosed as a lichenoid reaction to the Hawley retainer. Topical corticosteroids were prescribed, and the patient was asked to stop using the retainer and followed for six months. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to diagnose lichenoid lesions and even more challenging to differentiate between OLP and OLR, therefore it is essential to do a full intraoral and extraoral examination. OLL can occur in association with Hawley retainer, which we believe could be because it is made of an acrylic based material. Generally, OLL resolves after removal of the cause.

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old ('early treatment' in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old ('late treatment' in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic braces. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatments to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. We included trials that compared early treatment in children (two-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces versus late treatment in adolescents (one-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces, and trials that compared any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces versus no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (where treatment started at a similar age in the intervention groups).We excluded trials involving participants with a cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial deformity/syndrome, and trials that recruited patients who had previously received surgical treatment for their Class II malocclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analyses including two or three studies and the random-effects model for more than three studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs based on data from 1251 participants.Three trials compared early treatment with a functional appliance versus late treatment for overjet, ANB and incisal trauma. After phase one of early treatment (i.e. before the other group had received any intervention), there was a reduction in overjet and ANB reduction favouring treatment with a functional appliance; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no difference between groups in final overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18; 343 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43; 347 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Early treatment with functional appliances reduced the incidence of incisal trauma compared to late treatment (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95; 332 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The difference in the incidence of incisal trauma was clinically important with 30% (51/171) of participants reporting new trauma in the late treatment group compared to only 19% (31/161) of participants who had received early treatment.Two trials compared early treatment using headgear versus late treatment. After phase one of early treatment, headgear had reduced overjet and ANB; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in overjet (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12; 238 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26; 231 participants) (low-quality evidence). Early (two-phase) treatment with headgear reduced the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80; 237 participants) (low-quality evidence), with almost half the incidence of new incisal trauma (24/117) compared to the late treatment group (44/120).Seven trials compared late treatment with functional appliances versus no treatment. There was a reduction in final overjet with both fixed functional appliances (MD -5.46 mm, 95% CI -6.63 to -4.28; 2 trials, 61 participants) and removable functional appliances (MD -4.62, 95% CI -5.33 to -3.92; 3 trials, 122 participants) (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in final ANB between fixed functional appliances and no treatment (MD -0.53°, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.22; 3 trials, 89 participants) (low-quality evidence), but removable functional appliances seemed to reduce ANB compared to no treatment (MD -2.37°, 95% CI -3.01 to -1.74; 2 trials, 99 participants) (low-quality evidence).Six trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with Twin Block versus other appliances and found no difference in overjet (0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.76; 4 trials, 259 participants) (low-quality evidence). The reduction in ANB favoured treatment with a Twin Block (-0.56°, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16; 6 trials, 320 participants) (low-quality evidence).Three trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with removable functional appliances versus fixed functional appliances and found a reduction in overjet in favour of fixed appliances (0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; two trials, 154 participants) (low-quality evidence), and a reduction in ANB in favour of removable appliances (-1.04°, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.49; 3 trials, 185 participants) (low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.