Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 1: stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction outcomes after 12 months.

Background: There is a shortage of evidence on the best type of retainer. Objectives: Evaluate upper and lower bonded retainers (BRs) versus upper and lower vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) over 12 months, in terms of stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction. Trial design: Two-arm parallel group multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods: Sixty consecutive patients completing fixed appliance therapy and requiring retainers were recruited from 3 hospital departments. They were randomly allocated to either upper and lower labial segment BRs (n = 30) or upper and lower full-arch VFRs (n = 30). Primary outcome was stability. Secondary outcomes were retainer survival and patient satisfaction. A random sequence of treatment allocation was computer-generated and implemented by sealing in sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes independently prepared in advance. Patients, operators and outcome could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention. Results: Thirty patients received BRs (median [Mdn] age 16 years, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 2) and 30 received VFRs (Mdn age 17 years, IQR = 4). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At 12 months, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences in post-treatment change of maxillary labial segment alignment (BR = 1.1 mm, IQR = 1.56, VFR = 0.76 mm, IQR = 1.55, P = 0.61); however, there was greater post-treatment change in the mandibular VFR group (BR = 0.77 mm, IQR = 1.46, VFR = 1.69mm, IQR = 2.00, P = 0.008). The difference in maxillary retainer survival rates were statistically non-significant, P = 0.34 (BR = 63.6%, 239.3 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 73.3%, 311.1 days, 95% CI = 278.3-344.29). The mandibular BR had a lower survival rate (P = 0.01) at 12 months (BR = 50%, 239.3 days 95% CI = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 80%, 324.9 days 95% CI = 295.4-354.4). More subjects with VFRs reported discomfort (P = 0.002) and speech difficulties (P = 0.004) but found them easier to clean than those with BRs (P = 0.001). Limitations: Results are after 1 year and we do not know how much the removable retainers were worn. Conclusions: After 1 year, there is no evidence of a significant difference in stability or retainer survival in the maxilla. In the mandible, BRs are more effective at maintaining mandibular labial segment alignment, but have a higher failure rate. In comparison with patients wearing VFRs, patients wearing BRs reported that they caused less interference with speech, required less compliance to wear them, and were more comfortable to wear than VFRs. Patients found the BRs harder to keep clean. Trial registration: The trail was not registered.

Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 2: periodontal health outcomes after 12 months.

Background: Retainer have the potential to compromise periodontal health. Objectives: Evaluate the periodontal health implications of upper and lower bonded retainers (BRs) versus upper and lower vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) over 12 months. Trial design: Two-arm parallel group multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods: Sixty consecutive patients completing upper and lower fixed appliance therapy and requiring retainers were recruited from three hospital orthodontic departments. They were randomly allocated to either upper and lower labial segment BRs (n = 30) or upper and lower full-arch VFRs (n = 30). Periodontal health was assessed using the plaque and gingival indices of Silness and Loe, and the calculus index of Greene and Vermillion. Data were collected at debond and placement of the retainers (T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3). A random sequence of treatment allocation was computer-generated and implemented by sealing in sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes independently prepared in advance. Patients, operators, and outcome could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention. Results: Thirty patients received BRs (median age 16 years, interquartile range [IQR] = 2, 50% female, 50% male) and 30 received VFRs (median age 17 years, IQR = 4, 60% female, 40% male). Gingival inflammation decreased from baseline for both types of retainer. There was significantly less plaque and calculus accumulation and better gingival health with VFRs than BRs over the evaluated 12 months. No serious harm was observed. Limitations: It is not known how much the patients chose to wear their removable retainers. The results reported are after 1 year only. Conclusions: After 1 year, BRs were associated with greater accumulation of plaque and calculus than VFRs and minimally worse gingival inflammation than VFRs, but this did not appear to produce any clinically significant, adverse periodontal health problems. Trial registration: This trial was not registered. Funding: There was no funding.

The importance of the Basic Periodontal Examination for paediatric orthodontic patients.

Periodontal disease is considered to increase in prevalence around adolescence, owing to pubertal hormonal changes, early presentation in at-risk individuals and the challenges in maintaining patient motivation at this age. Adolescence provides the ideal stage of dental development for orthodontic assessment. Active periodontal disease can increase tooth mobility during orthodontic treatment. Therefore, it is essential that children and adolescents have appropriate and timely periodontal screening before commencing orthodontic treatment. The British Society of Periodontology and the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry recommend a modified Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) assessing index teeth for paediatric patients.This paper will summarise the recommended paediatric periodontal assessment and review a case which highlights the need for routine periodontal examination of orthodontic patients, by both general dental practitioners and orthodontists, to identify patients at risk for periodontal disease. The modified BPE for this younger cohort is simple and allows for rapid screening of periodontal disease. Where it is needed, further detailed examination and treatment can then be initiated to prevent exacerbation of an existing problem.

Giving ourselves a head start: improving the quality of documentation of referrals to neurosurgery.

Referrals to neurosurgical units are regularly made by doctors in the emergency department (ED), intensive care and acute medicine, following brain injuries sustained by both traumatic and non-traumatic processes. Although some centres accept electronic referrals, many still rely on telephone conversations with a specialist registrar. The flaw in this style of communication is that only information volunteered or requested is relayed. Furthermore, documentation of these dialogues is often incomplete, omitting specific and vital details. Inconsistent advice from referral centres on the management of such brain injury cases had been highlighted, prompting a review of practices at local level in order to improve quality of patient care. The aim of this project was to identify the current level of documentation and improve this through departmental education and implementation of a referral proforma. National guidelines and a literature review were used to formulate the gold standard for high quality documentation. ED patient notes were retrospectively reviewed over a three month period, assessing adequacy of referral documentation to a neurosurgical centre against the parameters previously set. Initial audit results and specific case studies were presented to ED team members at an educational meeting. A "record of telephone referral to neurosurgery" (RTRN) form was also introduced. Re-audit against the same set of standards was conducted to assess any change in level of documentation and use of the form itself. The results of this project have shown that, although departmental education improves clinical practice, following the introduction and use of a protocol such as the RTRN there was a significant improvement in the level, and therefore quality of, documentation.