Three-dimensional assessment of virtual clear aligner attachment removal: A prospective clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: In digital dentistry, virtual attachment removal (VAR) optimizes clear aligner therapy by enhancing efficiency for refinements and enabling prefabricated retainer production through the removal of attachments from a digital scan before the clinical removal of clear aligner attachments. This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of VAR in the maxillary arch. METHODS: A total of 110 teeth were analyzed from a sample of 54 maxillary scans from 25 subjects. Models with attachments were virtually debonded using Meshmixer (Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and superimposed over the control group in MeshLab. Vector Analysis Module (Canfield Scientific, Fairfield, NJ) was used to calculate and analyze 3-dimensional Euclidean distances on the buccal surfaces between the superimposed models. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 23.0, IBM, Armonk, NY). The Shapiro-Wilkes (α = 0.05) test determined a nonnormal distribution of results. The Kruskal-Wallis (α = 0.05) was used to determine differences between different tooth types and the number of attachments. RESULTS: The VAR protocol showed no statistical differences in the root mean square between different tooth segments with an overall tendency for inadequate attachment removal. No difference between the groups was found regarding the number of attachments when used as a main factor. CONCLUSIONS: The VAR technique is precise enough for the fabrication of retainers from printed dental models in a clinical setting and is not affected by the number of attachments on the tooth.

Environmental sustainability of post-orthodontic dental retainers: a comparative life-cycle assessment of Hawley and Essix retainers.

BACKGROUND: Environmental sustainability has been brought into the limelight due to the global climate crisis. This crisis is driven by human activities and even the healthcare sector is no exception. Within dentistry, orthodontics is a large global market; hence, the use of post-orthodontic retainers has a significant environmental footprint. The aim of this study was to determine the environmental sustainability of post-orthodontic retention using Hawley and Essix retainers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to compare the environmental impact of both retainers. All inputs and outputs were accounted for using the Ecoinvent database, v3.7.1, and openLCA software. Sixteen impact categories were used to determine their environmental burden. RESULTS: Of the 16 impact categories, the Hawley had a greater environmental burden than the Essix retainer in 12 categories. The Hawley's most significant contributors to its impact values are factory manufacturing and in-house production, with an average of 41.45% and 52.52%, respectively. For the Essix, the greatest contributor is factory manufacturing, with an average of 64.63%. However, when factoring in the lifespan of the retainers, the Essix would have a greater environmental impact than the Hawley retainer. LIMITATIONS: This study employed a comparative LCA. There were also assumptions made, but these were supported by research. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the evidence gathered in this study, Hawley retainers are more environmentally sustainable than Essix retainers. These results would better enable clinicians to factor in the environmental impact and make informed decisions on the choice of retainer type.

Stability, survival, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization of CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 2-year follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) fixed retainers (FRs) as an alternative to multistranded FRs to maintain orthodontic treatment outcome. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to compare CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded FRs in terms of stability until 2 years. Secondary outcomes were failure rates, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization. TRIAL DESIGN: 2-arm parallel, two-centre randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in a 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. FRs were bonded at the end of treatment, and patients were recalled after 12 and 24 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. Cost-minimization analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): 90 in CAD/CAM and 91 in conventional group. One hundred and fifty three patients attended T24 follow-up. There were no significant differences in LII and arch dimensions between groups for failure-free patients. Within 24 months, 34% maxillary CAD/CAM FRs and 38% maxillary conventional FRs failed, along with 42% mandibular CAD/CAM FRs and 40% mandibular conventional FRs, with no significant difference in survival between groups (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: maxillary arch: 1.20 [P = 0.46], mandibular arch: 0.98 [P = 0.94]). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between groups. No harms were observed. Cost-minimization analysis showed that CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs. CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths, and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional FRs after 24 months. There were no differences in failures and patient satisfaction between groups. CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.

Assessment of the effectiveness of two different orthodontic retention protocols.

INTRODUCTION: The main goal of orthodontic retention is to keep the teeth in their corrected positions. Fixed or removable retainers are the most common types of retainers used during the retention phase. For the maxilla, various types of retainers have been described, including the vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers. Fixed retainers are used for the lower jaw.

An assessment of the impact of adhesive coverage and wire type on fixed retainer failures and force propagation along two types of orthodontic retainer wires: an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the force required to promote the failure of fixed orthodontic retainers with different adhesive (composite) coverage and to assess the presence and extent of force propagation with two different orthodontic retainer wires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ortho-FlexTech and Ortho-Care Perform (0.0175 inches), each of 15-cm length, were bonded on acrylic blocks with different adhesive surface diameters (2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm). The samples (n = 160) were subjected to a tensile pull-out test, and debonding force was recorded. Fixed retainers using two different wires and 4-mm adhesive diameter were bonded on acrylic bases resembling a maxillary dental arch (n = 72). The retainers were loaded occluso-apically until the first sign of failure while being video recorded. Individual frames of the recordings were extracted and compared. A force propagation scoring index was developed to quantify the extent of force transmission under load. RESULTS: A 4-mm adhesive surface diameter required the highest debonding force for both retainer wires with significant differences compared with 2 mm (P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.69, 21.69) and 3 mm (P = .026; 95% CI: 0.60, 13.59). Force propagation scores were significantly higher for Ortho-Care Perform. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this laboratory-based assessment, consideration should be given to the fabrication of maxillary fixed retainers using a minimum of 4-mm diameter composite coverage on each tooth. Force appeared to propagate more readily with Ortho-Care Perform than with a flexible chain alternative. This may risk stress accumulation at the terminal ends with potential for associated unwanted tooth movement in the presence of intact fixed retainers.

Which orthodontic retention protocol should I implement? A critical assessment of a randomised controlled trial.

Trial design A single-centre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial.Objectives To assess differences in dental stability, patient perceptions and compliance and retainer failures in adolescents treated with vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) compared with those receiving bonded canine-to canine retainers after five years in retention.Methods In total, 104 eligible adolescents treated with fixed appliances in both jaws in a Swedish orthodontic clinic were randomised to two retention protocols. The intervention protocol consisted of a VFR covering all erupted teeth in the maxilla and a VFR in the mandible covering first premolar to first premolar. The controls received a VFR in the maxilla covering all erupted teeth and a bonded retainer wire to the lingual surfaces of the canines. The primary outcomes were various dental stability measures assessed at: debond (T1); six months (T2); 18 months (T3); and after five years (T4) in retention. Generalised estimating equations were used to quantify the effect of the different interventions on these outcome measures. One operator assessed all outcomes and participants could not be blinded. For the secondary outcomes, the perception and compliance with the retention protocols were assessed and the prevalence and rationale of retainer failure at T4. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03070444) and the research project was supported by the Centre for Research and Development, Region Gävleborg, Sweden.Results Of the 104 randomised patients, 30 were not available at T4, leaving 35 patients in the intervention and 39 in the comparator group. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to impute outcomes for the missing patients. Post-treatment changes at T4 were small in both jaws. In the maxilla, the Little's Irregularity Index (LII) increased similar in both retention groups (median difference: 0.3 mm). In the mandible, the median difference for the LLI in the bonded retainer group was 0.1 mm compared with 0.6 mm in VFR group. In both retention protocols, the overjet remained stable, the overbite increased and the arch lengths continued to decrease. Intercanine and intermolar width remained stable in the mandible. Intermolar width decreased significantly in the maxilla. No differences in satisfaction were found between retention protocols after five years. Also, 72% of patients had stopped or rarely wore the VFR appliances at T4. Besides some retainer failures in both groups, no serious adverse effects associated with the retainers were reported.Conclusions Most post-treatment changes in both retention protocols were small in both jaws, except for the anterior alignment in the mandible, which was more stable in the bonded retainer group. This difference is possibly not related to the retention technique but to the poor compliance with the VFRs and the inclusion of adolescents only. Satisfaction with both protocols was similar.

A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley retainers (HRs) and modified vacuum-formed retainers (mVFRs) with palatal coverage in maintaining transverse expansion throughout a 24-month retention period and to assess the subjects' perception toward the retainers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The trial accomplished blinding only by the outcome assessor and data analyst. Data were collected from post-orthodontic treatment patients who met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five subjects were randomly allocated using a centralized randomization technique into either mVFR (n = 18) or HR group (n = 17). Dental casts of subjects were evaluated at debond (T0), 3-month (T1), 6-month (T2), 12-month (T3), and 24-month retention (T4). The intercanine width (ICW), interpremolar width (IPMW), interfirst molar mesiobuccal cusp width (IFMW1), and interfirst molar distobuccal cusp width (IFMW2) were compared between groups over time using Mixed ANOVA. A pilot-tested and validated questionnaire consisting of six items were given at T4. Subjects were instructed to rate their retainer in terms of fitting, speech, appearance, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort on a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in arch width were found between the two groups at ICW (P = .83), IPMW (P = 0.63), IFMW1 (P = .22), and IFMW2 (P = .46) during the 24-month retention period. Also, no statistically significant differences were found between perception of both retainers in terms of fitting, speech, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort (P > .05) after 24-month wear. The appearance of mVFRs was rated significantly higher compared to HRs (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: HR and mVFR have similar clinical effectiveness for retention of transverse expansion cases in a 24-month retention period. Both retainers were perceived to be equal in terms of fitting, speech, oral hygiene, durability, and comfort. Subjects in the mVFRs group found their retainers to be significantly more esthetic than those in HRs group.

A Comparative Assessment of Three Mandibular Retention Protocols: A Prospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Fixed retainers have been advocated for the prevention of anterior mandibular crowding after orthodontic treatment. However, limited data is available to help clinicians choose a retention protocol that is acceptable in terms of stability, emergencies, and side effects in the long term. It was the aim of this study to assess survival and alignment stability of the 0.016" x 0.022" stainless steel wire compared to more common protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different mandibular fixed retention protocols were compared in 600 consecutive patients: 1. 0.0215" multistrand wire (MW) with separate curing of resin and composite; 2. 0.016" x 0.022" stainless-steel wire with simultaneous curing of resin and composite (SS1C); and 3. 0.016" x 0.022" stainless-steel wire with separate curing of resin and composite (SS2C). The hazard rate for detachment across wire groups was assessed with a Cox frailty model. RESULTS: Incisor alignment was maintained with all retention wires. One incisor with unexpected torque change was observed in group MW. The average annual emergency rate was below 2% for all three protocols. Fewer emergency visits were found in patients with solid steel wires than with multistrand wires. Detachment of the wire is the most common cause of emergency visits with no difference between wire types. Multistrand wires were more often damaged than were solid steel wires. There was no evidence that direct application of the composite on the uncured primer influenced retainer adhesion to the enamel. CONCLUSIONS: The mandibular anterior teeth can be predictably stabilised with a 0.016" x 0.022" stainless steel wire..

Cost analysis of two types of fixed maxillary retainers and a removable vacuum-formed maxillary retainer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increased interest in conducting healthcare economic evaluations. Also, orthodontic treatments have gathered focus from an economic point of view, however orthodontic research seldom examines both clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the costs of three retention methods: a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors, a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors and canines, and a removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in costs for the three types of retention methods. TRIAL DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel group, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety adolescent patients, 54 girls and 36 boys, treated with fixed or removable retainers in the maxilla, were recruited to the study. The patients were randomized in blocks of 30, by an independent person, to one of three groups: bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 13-23, bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 12-22, and removable VFR. A cost analysis was made regarding chair time costs based on the costs per hour for the specialist in orthodontics, and material costs plus any eventual costs for repairs of the appliance. Changes in Little's irregularity index and in single contact point discrepancies (CPDs) were measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. The analysis was performed at 2 years of retention. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in costs between the maxillary fixed retainers and the VFRs was found, however, the material and emergency costs were significantly higher for the VFR compared with the bonded retainers. All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity, and no statistically significant differences in irregularity or CPDs of the maxillary anterior teeth in the three groups was detected. LIMITATIONS: It was a single-centre trial, and hence less generalizable. Costs depended on local factors, and consequently, cannot be directly transferred to other settings. CONCLUSIONS: All three retention methods can be recommended when considering costs and retention capacity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04616755.

One-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley retainers (HRs) and modified vacuum-formed retainers (mVFRs) with palatal coverage in maintaining transverse expansion during a 12-month retention period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from postorthodontic treatment patients who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 35 patients were randomly allocated using a centralized randomization technique into either mVFR (n = 18) or HR group (n = 17). The outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded to the retention method. Dental casts of patients were evaluated at debond, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months of retention. Intercanine width (ICW), interpremolar width (IPMW), interfirst molar mesiobuccal cusp width 1 (IFMW1), and interfirst molar distobuccal cusp width 2 (IFMW2) were compared between groups over time using mixed analysis of variance. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for ICW (P = .76), IPMW (P = .63), IFMW1 (P = .16), and IFMW2 (P = .40) during the 12-month retention period. CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis could not be rejected. HR and mVFR had similar clinical effectiveness in the retention of transverse expansion cases during a 12-month retention period.

Comparative assessment of relapse and failure between CAD/CAM stainless steel and standard stainless steel fixed retainers in orthodontic retention patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare relapse and failure rates of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and standard fixed retainers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial included 46 patients who completed active orthodontic treatment and complied with retention visits. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 16), Lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 16), and control group with stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (traditional, n = 14). Intraoral scans were obtained at placement of fixed retainers (T1), 3-month visit (T2), and 6-month visit (T3) and measured for intercanine width and Little's Irregularity Index. Failures were recorded. RESULTS: The CAD/CAM group experienced less intercanine width decrease than the traditional group at 3 months (mean difference, 0.83 ± 0.16 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.22; P < .001) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.23 ± 0.40 mm; 95% CI, 0.19-2.27; P < .05). The CAD/CAM group experienced less increase in Little's Irregularity Index compared with the lab group within 3 months (mean difference, 0.81 ± 0.27 mm; 95% CI, 0.12-1.49; P < .05). Failures from greatest to least were experienced by the lab group (43.8%), the CAD/CAM group (25%), and the traditional group (14.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Within 6 months of bonding fixed retainers, CAD/CAM fixed retainers showed less relapse than lab-based and traditional chairside retainers and less failures than lab-based retainers.

A comparative assessment of failures and periodontal health between 2 mandibular lingual retainers in orthodontic patients. A 2-year follow-up, single practice-based randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the survival rates and periodontal health in patients with 3-strand round twisted (RT) vs 8-strand rectangular braided (RB) fixed retainers bonded to all 6 anterior teeth in the mandible. METHODS: A total of 133 patients completing orthodontic treatment (median age, 24.6 years; 25th percentile, 17.2 years; 75th percentile, 32.4 years; minimum, 15.1 years; maximum, 49.8 years) were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an RT or RB wire retainer. Inclusion criteria were all mandibular permanent incisors and canines present, no active caries, no restorations, no fractures on the mandibular incisors and canines, no periodontal disease. Patients with poor oral hygiene before debonding were excluded from the trial. The primary outcome was any first-time retainer failure. Secondary outcomes were periodontal index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, gingival index, and probing depth. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of size 4, 6, or 8 with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was not possible in this trial. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after placement of the retainer. Retainer survival was assessed using Cox regression. Periodontal parameters were reported at each time point and generalised estimating equations were used to assess the effect of treatment, time, tooth and treatment X time interaction on the indices. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; in 1 patient, the intervention was discontinued. During 2-year follow-up 37 of 66 (56.1%, RT group) and 32 of 66 (48.5%, RB group) retainers failed at least once (log-rank test, P = 0.55). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.12; P = 0.13). Neither age nor gender was a predictor of failure. All periodontal parameters (periodontal index, bleeding on probing, plaque index, gingival index, and pocket depth) were comparable between groups and remained relatively stable during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The overall risk for first-time failure was high and amounted to 52.3% (56.1% in the RT group and 48.5% in the RB group). There was no difference in terms of survival or periodontal health between the examined retainers.

Three-dimensional assessment of virtual bracket removal for orthodontic retainers: A prospective clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: Computer-aided design and manufacturing of orthodontic retainers from digitally debonded models can be used to facilitate same-day delivery. The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to validate a novel technique for virtual bracket removal (VBR) in-office, comparing the accuracy with 2 orthodontic laboratories that use VBR for retainer fabrication in the digital workflow. METHODS: The sample consisted of 40 intraoral scans of 20 patients. Four groups were compared. The scans without brackets were used as a control group. VBR was performed by 3 groups: In-office VBR (Software Meshmixer, version 3.5.474; Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif), Orthodent Laboratory (ODL; Buffalo, NY), and New England Orthodontic Laboratory (NEOLab; Andover, Mass). The virtually debonded models were superimposed onto the control models using surface-based registration. Regional 3-dimensional Euclidean distances between surface points of superimposed models were calculated for comparative analysis of surface changes after VBR using Vector Analysis Module (Canfield Scientific, Fairfield, NJ) software. RESULTS: The accuracy of VBR using the Meshmixer did not differ significantly from the VBR protocols used by the 2 laboratories. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 laboratories, with ODL showing lower accuracy than NEOLab. Although some differences were statistically significant, they were very small and not considered clinically relevant. There was also a statistically significant difference between the 3 tooth segments (incisors, canines/premolars, and first molars), with VBR of the first molars and second premolars showing the least accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The VBR techniques using the in-office Meshmixer, ODL, and NEOLab were considered accurate enough for the clinical use of orthodontic retainers fabricated from printed models.

Assessment of the effect of vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers on periodontal health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, increasing attention has been paid to the periodontal health of orthodontic patients in the maintenance stage in clinical practice. The focus of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) and Hawley retainers (HR) on periodontal health, in order to provide a reference for clinical selection. METHODS: From the establishment of the database until November 2020, a large number of databases were searched to find relevant randomized control trials, including the Cochrane Library databases, Embase, PubMed, Medline via Ovi, Web of Science, Scopus, Grey Literature in Europe, Google Scholar and CNKI. Related literature was manually searched and included in the analysis. Two researchers screened the literature according to relevant criteria. The size of the effect was determined using RevMan5.3 software, and the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to estimate the results using a random effects model. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included six randomized controlled trials involving 304 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in sulcus probing depth status between the VFR group and the HR group, including at 1, 3, and 6 months. Compared with the VFR group, the HR group showed a lower gingival index at 1 month (mean difference = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.19) and 3 months (mean difference = 0.11, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.17), while there was no statistically significant difference at 6 months (mean difference = 0.10, 95%CI: -0.07 to 0.27). The plaque index of the HR group also showed a good state at 1 month (mean difference = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.12), 3 months (mean difference = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.08 to 0.16), and 6 months (mean difference = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.09 to 0.29). Subgroup analysis of PLI showed that when all teeth were measured, PLI status was lower in the HR group at 6 months (mean difference = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.46). PLI status was also low for the other teeth group (mean difference = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08 to 0.22). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that patients using the Hawley retainer had better periodontal health compared with those using vacuum-formed retainers. However, more research is needed to look at the periodontal health of patients using these two retainers.

The origin and evolution of the Hawley retainer for the effectiveness to maintain tooth position after fixed orthodontic treatment compare to vacuum-formed retainer: A systematic review of RCTs.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarize the effectiveness and patient compliances of Hawley retainer (HR) compared to vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) and provide the best clinical evidence related to the use of these retainers for maintaining tooth position following fixed orthodontic appliance so that orthodontists can decide which are the most appropriate methods and retainers to use for each individual patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Orthodontic journals, and relevant articles for eligible studies. Only RCTs studies were included; no restrictions on publication status or language were applied until May 20, 2019. We collected the study related to the effectiveness of these two retainers. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes, survival time, cost-effectiveness, occlusal contact, and adverse effect on gingival and speech articulation were also collected. RESULTS: We finally included fifteen articles in the qualitative synthesis. No significant difference was observed in patients who had worn the retainers on a full-time or part-time, basis in both HR and VFR in terms of the change in arch widths and arch lengths. VFR appeared to be better at preventing relapses of incisor irregularity than HR. Patient satisfaction with VFR was higher than with HR, and there was no difference in survival rates for both types of retainers. In terms of cost-effectiveness, occlusal contacts, and gingival health, there were a few studies with limited evidence to compare these retainers. For speech articulation, VFR was less affected in comparison to HR. CONCLUSIONS: We found that wearing VFR provides better relapse prevention of incisor irregularity than HR in both arches, indicating their usefulness in clinical practice. However, there is no evidence to show that the pattern of time duration wearing these retainers provides excellent stability. Overall, there are insufficient high-quality RCTs to provide additional evidence, and further high-quality RCTs research is needed.

In Vitro Assessment of Cytotoxicity and Estrogenicity of Vivera® Retainers.

AIM: To investigate the cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of Vivera® retainers by assessing their biological behavioral effects as-received from the manufacturer and after retrieved from patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this, in vitro investigation six sets (maxillary and mandibular) of Vivera® retainers, three as received and three retrieved after four weeks of use by patients of an orthodontic postgraduate clinic, were immersed in the normal saline solution for 14 days following different modes of sterilization. The estrogenicity assays involved two cell lines, namely the estrogen-sensitive MCF-7 and the estrogen-insensitive MDA-MB-231. Following a 6 day incubation with the solutions to be tested, at concentrations varying from 5% to 20% v/v in medium supplemented with 2% fetal calf serum devoid of endogenous estrogens, estrogenicity was assessed by cell counting; p-Estradiol was used as positive control. The statistical analysis of data was performed with two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with appliance and concentration as predictors. Differences were further investigated with the Tukey multiple comparison tests at the 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: No significant MCF-7 proliferation was induced by the three samples compared either to the eluents from as-received retainers or to the negative control. As expected, p-estradiol induced a potent stimulation of MCF-7 cell proliferation, while no effect was observed on MDA-MB-231 cells. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this experiment eluents of as-received and retrieved Vivera® retainers did not seem to exhibit xenoestrogenic activity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Vivera® retainers can be used as part-time removable oral appliances following the manufacturer's instructions.

The efficacy of orthodontic treatments for anterior crowding with Invisalign compared with fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating Index.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the efficacy of Invisalign in a large sample of patients compared to fixed appliances. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The test group consisted of 100 patients treated with Invisalign compared with a control group treated with conventional fixed appliances matched for sex, age, and initial severity of malocclusion based on the amount of anterior dental crowding (Little Index) and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR Index) scores. The retainer used was a 0.0175-inch multistranded stainless-steel wire bonded from canine-to-canine in the mandibular arch and from lateral inisor-to-lateral incisor in the maxillary arch. A paired t test was used to compare both initial and final PAR scores. RESULTS: There was an overall 80.9% improvement, and 63 subjects did not need any refinement. The mean number of aligners used was 14 (+ 15 for the refinements) in the maxillary arch and 29 (+ 14 for the refinements) in the mandibular arch. The mean duration of treatment was 14 months (+ 7 months for the refinements). Significant statistical differences were found in the posttreatment scores, within both the Invisalign group and the control group. No differences were found in the follow-up scores. Additionally, the duration of treatment was 4 months longer in the control group. CONCLUSION: More than 90% of the subjects treated with Invisalign achieved a significant improvement, as shown by the PAR scores. A need for additional aligners was reported for 37% of the patients. Fixed bonded retainers seem to be a good option in preventing tooth relapse after Invisalign and fixed conventional treatments.

Performance of Hawley-type retainers: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

Background: Although post-treatment changes are almost inevitable, and retention has long been recognized as one of the most critical and routine problems faced by orthodontists, there remains a lack of certainty regarding the parameters of any definitive retention protocol following orthodontic treatment. Objective: To investigate the performance of the Hawley-type retainers. Search methods: Search without restrictions in 15 databases and hand searching until December 2016. Selection criteria: Randomized clinical trials comparing the performance of Hawley-type retainers to other removable appliances or comparing different Hawley-type retainers' wearing schedules. Data collection and analysis: Following study retrieval and selection, data extraction and individual study risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool took place. The overall quality of the available evidence was assessed with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: Finally, 10 studies were identified involving 854 individuals, followed for up to 1 year after debonding. Eight studies compared subjects using Hawley and clear thermoplastic retainers; another compared Hawley to positioner and, finally, one trial involved individuals allocated to different Hawley appliance wearing schedules. Three studies were considered as being of low, four of unclear, and three of high risk of bias. In general, few differences were observed between the Hawley and other removable retainers regarding outcomes relevant to maxillary and mandibular dental arch measurements, dental arch relationships and occlusal contacts, speech evaluation, patient reported outcomes, adverse effects, and problems related to the appliances, as well as economic evaluation related outcomes. Moreover, no differences were observed between the compared Hawley wearing schedules. Overall, the quality of the available evidence was considered low. Conclusions: Given the overall quality of the available evidence and the multitude of parameters, which may have affected the results of the included trials, good practice would suggest further research in the respective field in order to increase both the quantity and quality of information available. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42015029279). Funding: No funding was received for the present systematic review.

Objective assessment of compliance with intra- and extraoral removable appliances.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an objective assessment of the level of compliance in young patients prescribed various types of removable appliances and to determine the influence of device type, treatment duration, and patient age, gender, psychological maturity, and awareness of monitoring on compliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 patients were fitted with either a class 2 (Frankel or bionator) or a class 3 (face mask) removable appliance, each bearing a compliance indicator chip, and they were instructed to wear them for 13 hours per day. Compliance was monitored by means of the sensor for an average of 8 months. Of the patients, 14 were informed that their appliance was fitted with a monitoring sensor, and 16 were not. The psychological maturity of all patients was assessed on the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale, and the effect on compliance of this score as well as the patient- and treatment-related variables considered were determined via statistical analysis Results: The mean compliance recorded by the chips was 8.6 ± 2.9 hours, far lower than the 13 hours prescribed, and younger patients showed significantly greater compliance than adolescents (P < .01). However, no significant differences in compliance were found between intra- and extraoral appliances, and neither gender, psychological scores, treatment duration, nor awareness of being monitored had any significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance is generally very poor in young patients, regardless of their gender and psychological maturity. Although awareness of monitoring does not appear to boost compliance, such systems may be a valuable means of providing a dentist with objective information regarding their patients' compliance.

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.