Stability and failure rate during 3 years of fixed retention: A follow-up of an randomized clinical trial on adolescents with four different lingual retainers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate stability outcomes and failure rates associated with four types of lingual retainers: (1) dead-soft wire, (2) multistrand stainless steel (SS) wire, (3) CAD/CAM nitinol, and (4) connected bonding pads (CBPs) after 3 years of retention. METHODS: This study enrolled 96 patients (66 females, 30 males) with a median age of 19 years with four types of lingual retainers: (1) 0.016 × 0.022-inch dead-soft wire, (2) 0.0215-inch five-strand SS wire, (3) 0.014 × 0.014-inch CAD/CAM nitinol wire, and (4) CBPs. The irregularity index, intercanine distances, and arch lengths were obtained and used to evaluate mandibular stability. Failure rates were also assessed during this study. Data were statistically analysed. RESULTS: Irregularity increased, whereas intercanine width and arch length decreased after 3 years of retention. The greatest irregularity was associated with the CBPs and the least with the CAD/CAM retainers. Changes in stability measurements were significantly higher in the dead-soft wire and CBPs than those in the CAD/CAM nitinol and multistrand SS wires. Parallel to these changes, the frequency of failure yielded similar results with the same significance between the groups. The failure rate of CBPs, in contrast to the CAD/CAM nitinol and multistrand SS wires, was significantly higher in the right quadrant (P < .05). CONCLUSION: After taking the 3-year results into consideration, CAD/CAM nitinol and multistrand SS wires were found to be more successful than the others in maintaining mandibular stability. The most failures were observed with CBPs after 3 years of retention.

Treatment stability with bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers after 12 months: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of V-bend bonded retainers (BR) versus vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) regarding their capacity to maintain treatment stability and survival rates after 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients finishing orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated into two groups. The BR group received maxillary and mandibular BRs in the lingual surfaces of the anterior teeth. The VFR group received VFRs right after fixed appliances removal. The patients were evaluated at four time-points: at fixed appliances removal (T0), after 3 (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3). In each time-point digital models were obtained and analysed with the OrthoAnalyzer™ software. Treatment stability based on occlusal outcomes and retainers' survival rates were evaluated. Intergroup comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U-tests. The Kaplan-Meier survival plot and the log-rank test were employed to assess the retainers' survival. RESULTS: Both BR and VFR groups included 25 patients. The groups were comparable regarding their baseline characteristics. Up to 6 months, both retainers were equally effective; however, after 12 months, BRs were more effective in maintaining the incisors' alignment in the maxilla and the mandible compared to the VFRs. No differences were noticed in the intercanine and intermolar widths, overjet and overbite. There were no differences regarding the retainers' survivability in both arches. CONCLUSIONS: BRs were more effective in maintaining the alignment of the incisors in the maxilla and mandible compared to VFRs after 12 months. Both retainers presented the same survival rates after the same period.

Comparison of efficacy of thermoplastic retainer with round and rectangular bonded lingual wire retainer in the mandible two years after orthodontic treatment: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse three protocols in maintaining the stability of orthodontic therapy results and their effect on gingival health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six subjects (pre-therapeutic age 11-18 years; 68% female) randomly allocated into three retention groups of equal size were analysed. The first group had a 0.673 × 0.268 mm (0.027 × 0.011 inches) rectangular braided steel retention wire bonded to the lingual surfaces of all mandibular teeth from canine to canine, and the second group had a 0.406 mm (0.016 inches) round twisted steel wire. The third group was the control, without wires, and only with vacuum-formed retainers. All three groups had vacuum-formed removable retainers in the maxilla. The frequency of wire detachment/breakage/loss of retainer, the occurrence of crowding of mandibular incisors, and changes in intercanine width and gingival health were monitored. RESULTS: Incidence and severity of relapse differed between groups (p = 0.001 and 0.049) being most common in the removable retainer group (incidence 68.2%; severity 0.7 ± 1.0 mm), followed by the round wire group (36.4%; 0.5 ± 1.2 mm) and rectangular wire group (13.6%; 0.1 ± 0.1 mm). The intercanine width decreased more without a bonded retainer (incidence 68.2%; severity 0.5 ± 0.7 mm) and with the round wire more (45.5%; 0.5 ± 0.7 mm) than with the rectangular (27.3%; 0.1 ± 0.3 mm). The difference was significant for incidence (p = 0.025), but not severity. Detaching of the wires/breakage/loss of retainer was similar. There were no significant differences in the accumulation of biofilm, calculus and gingivitis between appliances. CONCLUSION: A rectangular wire is the most effective in retention, and the impact of retention appliances on gingival health is similar. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05121220. Registered 02 October 2021 - Retrospectively registered. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Studying guidelines for reducing relapse, proper use of materials and appliances, the behavior of retention wires according to their profile in the retention phase, and possibilities of maintaining oral health will contribute to improving the stability of orthodontic therapy results.

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.

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.

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).

Relapse and failure rates between CAD/CAM and conventional fixed retainers: a 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Retention has been always considered a major challenge in orthodontics. Recently computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers (FRs) have been introduced as a marked development in retainer technology, offering potential advantages. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the differences in relapse and failure rates in patients treated with FRs using CAD/CAM technology, lab-based technique, and chairside method. TRIAL DESIGN: A double-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted over a 2-year period at a single centre. INTERVENTIONS: These patients were divided into three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded Stainless Steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 14), lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 15), and a chairside group with Stainless Steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (chairside, n = 14). OUTCOMES: Inter-canine width (ICW) and Little's irregularity index were digitally measured from scans at the orthodontic debonding (T1), 6-month retention (T2), 1-year retention (T3), and 2-year retention (T4) visits. All forms of failure were documented and analyzed. RANDOMIZATION: Participants were randomly assigned to the three groups using online randomization software (randomization.com) by a statistician who was not involved in the study. BLINDING: Patients were blinded in terms of the FR group to which they were each randomly assigned. The principal investigator was blinded upon data analysis since patients' records were coded to minimize observer and measurement bias. RESULTS: Initially 81 patients were assessed for eligibility. Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated into the three study groups. After 2-year follow-up, 43 patients came back for the follow-up and were analyzed. The CAD/CAM group showed significantly less reduction in ICW compared to the chairside group at all time intervals (P < .05) and compared to the lab group at 6 months (P = .038). In terms of LII, the CAD/CAM group exhibited significantly less change than the chairside and lab groups at all time intervals (P < .05). The CAD/CAM group had the lowest failure rate (21.4%), followed by chairside group (28.6%) and then lab group (33.3%), however the differences were insignificant. No harms were observed in the current study. CONCLUSION: Within 2 years of fixed retention, CAD/CAM FRs showed significantly less relapse than lab-based and chairside FRs. However, there was no significant difference in failure rates among the groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05915273.

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.

Comparison of chairside rectangular chain retainers and multi-stranded conventional retainers: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While retention appliances are widely used in orthodontics, there is still no evidence-based consensus regarding the optimal type of appliance or time of retention. OBJECTIVES: To compare chairside rectangular chain retainers, which can be placed in one sitting, with conventional multi-stranded bonded retainers regarding their levels of stability, biological side effects, complications, and patient experiences. TRIAL DESIGN: A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In total, 48 patients were included in this single-centre, randomized controlled trial conducted in Varberg, Region Halland, Sweden. The patients were randomized to two groups: the chairside rectangular chain retainer group, using the Ortho FlexTech retainer (OFT); and the conventional retainer group, using the 0.0195 Penta One multi-stranded spiral wire (PeO). The primary outcome was Little´s irregularity index (LII) evaluated at debond (T0) and at 3 months (T3) and 12 months (T12). The secondary outcomes were inter-canine distance (ICD), plaque index (PI), calculus index (CI), bleeding on probing (BoP), and caries, evaluated at T0, T3, and T12, as well as patients' perceptions, evaluated at T3 and T12, and technical complications that were registered throughout the study period. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for continuous variables for inter-group comparisons, and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used for intra-group comparisons. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding LII, biological side effects, technical complications, or patients' experiences. However, there was a small but statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the maintenance of the ICD. Within the OFT group, there was a significant increase in CI, and within the PeO group, there was a significant increase in BoP. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of clinical relevance, the chairside rectangular chain retainer and the conventional multi-stranded spiral wire provide similar outcomes with respect to the stability of alignment, biological side-effects, technical complications, and patients' experiences short-term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: VGFOUreg-929962. Keywords: Orthodontic retainers; fixed retainers; retention; stability.

Mechanical properties of combined packable and high-filled flowable composite used for the fixed retainer: an in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often utilize both flowable and packable composites concurrently in bonding fixed retainers. Thus, this study aimed to assess the synergistic effect of these composites in the bonding process. METHODS: This in vitro study divided specimens into three groups: flowable composite (nano-hybrid, Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent), packable composite (nano-hybrid, Tetric N-ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent), and combined use of flowable and packable composite. Shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and wire pull-out resistance were compared among the groups. Statistical analyses were conducted using ANOVA and Tukey tests to compare study groups. Additionally, Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to analyze the ARI index among the groups. RESULTS: ANOVA results indicated no statistically significant differences among test groups (P = 0.129) regarding SBS. However, a significant difference existed between flowable and packable composite groups (P = 0.01) regarding ARI scores. Among the study groups, flowable composite exhibited the highest frequencies of ARI scores of 1 and 2, whereas packable composite showed the highest frequency of ARI scores of 0. The combined group had higher frequencies of ARI scores of 0 and 1 compared to the flowable composite. The wire pull-out test revealed that the combined application of flowable and packable composite resulted in significantly lower detachments compared to the packable composite alone (P = 0.008). However, no significant differences were observed in the comparisons between the flowable-packable (P = 0.522) and combined-flowable (P = 0.128) groups. CONCLUSION: The combined use of flowable and packable composites for fixed retainers demonstrated adequate shear bond strength and ideal ARI scores, suggesting it as a suitable adhesive system for bonding orthodontic fixed retainers.

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.

Microbial adherence on vacuum-formed retainers with different surface roughness as constructed from conventional stone models and 3D printed models: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This single center parallel, randomized controlled trial aimed to determine the propensity of microbial adherence on vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) with different surface roughness imprints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients debonded from fixed appliances at a teaching institution were allocated by block randomization stratified for gender to three groups [VFRs fabricated on conventional, fused deposition modeling (FDM) or stereolithography apparatus (SLA) working models]. Participants wore the VFRs for three months full-time followed by three months part-time. VFRs were collected after each follow-up for Streptococcus and yeast counts. Surface roughness was measured indirectly on the working models using a 3D optical surface texture analyzer. Blinding was not feasible due to appliance appearance. The trial was registered [NCT03844425 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )] and funded by the Universiti Malaya Dental Postgraduate Research Grant (DPRG/14/19). RESULTS: Thirty participants (eleven conventional, ten FDM, and nine SLA) were analyzed after six dropped out. No harms were reported. Microbial counts between the groups were not significantly different. There were more microbes in the lower VFRs than upper VFRs (total count: p<0.05; effect size, 0.5 during full-time wear and 0.4 during part-time wear). SLA had significantly (p<0.05) smoother surface than FDM (effect size, 0.3) and conventional models (effect size, 0.5). Microbial adherence was not associated with working model surface roughness. CONCLUSION: Microbial adherence on VFRs was not influenced by degree of surface roughness imprints from working models. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 3D printed models can be used to make VFRs. Lower VFRs tended to accumulate oral microbes, potentially increasing the oral health risk in the lower arch.

Diagnostic compatibility of various fixed orthodontic retainers for head/neck MRI and dental MRI.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic MRI compatibility of different fixed orthodontic retainers using a high-resolution 3D-sequence optimized for artifact reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary and mandibular retainers made of five different materials were scanned in vitro and in vivo at 3 T MRI using an MSVAT-SPACE sequence. In vitro, artifact volumes were determined for all maxillary and mandibular retainers (AVmax; AVmand). In vivo, two independent observers quantified the extent of artifacts based on the visibility of 124 dental and non-dental landmarks using a five-point rating scale (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = acceptable, 4 = poor, 5 = not visible). RESULTS: Rectangular-steel retainers caused the largest artifacts (AVmax/AVmand: 18,060/15,879 mm3) and considerable diagnostic impairment in vivo (mean landmark visibility score ± SD inside/outside the retainer areas: 4.8 ± 0.8/2.9 ± 1.6). Smaller, but diagnostically relevant artifacts were observed for twistflex steel retainers (437/6317 mm3, 3.1 ± 1.7/1.3 ± 0.7). All retainers made of precious-alloy materials produced only very small artifact volumes (titanium grade 1: 70/46 mm3, titanium grade 5: 47/35 mm3, gold: 23/21 mm3) without any impact on image quality in vivo (each retainer: visibility scores of 1.0 ± 0.0 for all landmarks inside and outside the retainer areas). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to steel retainers, titanium and gold retainers are fully compatible for both head/neck and dental MRI when using MSVAT-SPACE. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that titanium and gold retainers do not impair the diagnostic quality of head/neck and dental MRI when applying an appropriate artifact-reduction technique. Steel retainers, however, are not suitable for dental MRI and can severely impair image quality in head/neck MRI of the oral cavity.

A comparative evaluation of mechanical wear of adhesives used for bonded retainers that underwent brushing for 1 hour under 36 mm of linear action, using computer-aided 3D scan-an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to comparatively evaluate the mechanical wear of adhesives used in bonded retainers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty mandibular acrylic teeth were included in the study that were divided into 4 different groups based upon the composite used. Each acrylic tooth was bonded with a retainer wire and composite of their respective group (Heliosit, Restofill, Tetric-N-flow, and Filtek Z350 XT). These bonded acrylic teeth were subjected to 3D scan in order to evaluate the volume and surface area of the composite. The 3D scans were recorded using MEDIT 3D scanner. After evaluating, the samples were subjected to brushing with the aid of a custom-made brushing simulator using a toothbrush with soft bristles and toothpaste slurry. The samples were subjected to 1 hr of brushing. These samples were again subjected to 3D scans to evaluate (post-test volume and surface area) and underwent statistical analysis. RESULTS: The results showed the Heliosit group exhibited the highest mean volume (1.76 mm3) and surface area (4.81 mm2) difference between the pre-test and post-test values whereas the least mean volume difference (1.10 mm3) and surface area difference (3.21 mm2) were seen in the Tetric-N-flow group. CONCLUSION: All the four composites underwent change in the mean surface area and volume after being subjected to brushing, suggesting that the composites routinely used for bonding fixed bonded lingual retainers are subjected to changes due to abrasion. The Heliosit group, which showed least filler loading among the 4 composites, exhibited least resistance to wear, whereas the Tetric-N-flow group which had highest filler loading among the composites exhibited highest resistance to wear. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The most crucial phase during orthodontic treatment is the retention phase. This phase is responsible for the long-term results of the treatment. The retainers that are placed in the oral cavity are subjected to changes due to oral environment, chemical changes, and mechanical changes. These changes have a direct effect on the retainers, which tend to alter their properties. Thus, the effects of these changes are to be studied thoroughly.

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 effectiveness of adjuncts or alternatives to the use of orthodontic retainers in preserving posttreatment outcomes: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of adjuncts or alternatives to mechanical retention in preserving postorthodontic treatment outcomes. METHODS: Electronic databases, unpublished literature, and ongoing trials were searched until July 22, 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42021291165). Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of adjuncts and alternatives to conventional orthodontic retainers were included. Stability, periodontal effects, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported outcomes were to be evaluated. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) were used for risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Exploratory sensitivity analysis was undertaken to calculate the weighted treatment effects of the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 5128 records were screened. Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 5 were randomized controlled trials. Five trials were judged to be at high risk of bias, with 2 studies of unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity between the limited number of included studies precluded the conduct of meta-analysis. Circumferential supracrestal fibrotomy resulted in less increase in the mandibular Little's Irregularity Index (mean difference, -2.30 mm; 95% confidence interval, -2.86 to -1.74). The overall level of evidence was of very low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuncts and alternatives to mechanical retention have promise, but based on the existing evidence, the reliance on mechanical retention cannot be reduced. There is weak evidence supporting circumferential supracrestal fibrotomy to improve stability outcomes. Further high-quality prospective research focusing on the predictability and acceptability of these approaches is needed.

Comparison of 2 different wear protocols of vacuum-formed retainers with respect to the conventional parameters and 3-dimensional superimpositional analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 2 different wear protocols of vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) in terms of angular and linear displacement of teeth using 3-dimensional (3D) superimpositional analysis and conventional model parameters. METHODS: The study was conducted on 2 groups, each consisting of 17 patients randomly assigned to the part-time group or full-time group of VFR wearing after a nonextraction treatment. While conventional model measurements were assessed on 3D dental casts, 3D tooth movements were evaluated by digitally superimposed scans of casts acquired at 4-time points (debonding and 1, 3, and 6 months after debonding). Regarding conventional parameters, the difference between time-dependent changes among the groups was tested using the nonparametric Brunner-Langer and parametric linear mixed models. Considering 3D measurements, comparisons of groups were made using the Student t tests. RESULTS: There were no significant intergroup differences regarding conventional model parameters at any time (P >0.05). Significant intergroup differences were observed regarding angular and linear relapses in the labiolingual direction for maxillary and mandibular incisors, as well as the rotational relapses for maxillary left canine and mandibular right lateral incisor, which were greater in the part-time group in the first month and at the end of 6 months (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional model parameters appear to play a debatable role in evaluating the effectiveness of a retainer wear regimen. Three-dimensional analysis of tooth movements revealed that part-time VFR wear was less effective in retaining labiolingual and rotational tooth movements for the first month after debonding.

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.