Assessment of the unwanted tooth movement associated with an extended maxillary fixed retainer (3D analysis).

BACKGROUND: Posttreatment changes after orthodontic treatment are challenging. One of the main reasons for such a phenomenon is the lack of patient compliance with removable retainers especially in the maxillary arch, due to palatal coverage, deterioration of speech, decreased masticatory efficiency, and loss of retainers. Fixed retainers have been introduced to overcome patient compliance and provide longer stable results. However, teeth still show movements when a six-unit fixed retainer is in place. Thus, in this study, an eight-unit fixed retainer was evaluated in an attempt to eliminate unwanted movements. THE AIM OF THIS RESEARCH: was to assess short-term positional changes associated with an eight-unit extended maxillary fixed retainer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-arm clinical trial was conducted to address the aim of the study. This research was approved by the institutional review board of the Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University (IORG:0008839, No-0479-8/2022). The registration date of this study was 5/06/2023. Twenty-eight patients (19.8 ± 4.5 years) who had finished the active orthodontic phase and started retention had an eight-unit extended maxillary fixed retainer that was bonded to the palatal surface of the maxillary incisors, canines, and the first premolars or the second premolars. Pre-retention and one-year post-retention intra-oral scans were made to produce STL files that were superimposed to determine the amount of tooth change. Additionally, analysis of digital casts and lateral cephalometric radiographs was performed. RESULTS: Statistically significant changes in all planes and the rotation of teeth after one year of retention were found. The upper right lateral incisor exhibited the most evident change in the vertical plane, while the upper right central incisor exhibited the greatest change overall. Minimal changes in the cast measurements were observed. Lateral cephalometric measurements showed minimal changes after one year of retention, and these changes were not statistically significant except in the interincisal angle and the angle between the upper incisor and the line connecting the A-point to the pogonion. CONCLUSION: Increasing the extension of maxillary fixed retainers did not eliminate unwanted tooth movement in the first year of retention.

Gingival health and relapse tendency: a split mouth randomized controlled trial of two positions of lower fixed retainers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare between lower permanent retainers placed in the middle of the incisal third and retainers placed in the middle of lower incisors in terms of gingival condition, lower incisors stability and retainers' failure rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a split-mouth clinical trial. Fifty patients finished fixed orthodontic treatment and required fixed permanent retainer in the lower arch were recruited. A multistranded (0.0215 inch) retainer, with a vertical step in the midline placing half of the retainer in the incisal third and the other half in the middle of the lower incisors was attached to all the teeth in the lower labial segment. After one year, all the subjects were recalled. The primary outcome was to evaluate the plaque index (PI) and the gingival index (GI) of the lower labial segment teeth. The secondary outcome was to assess retainers' failure rate and the relapse in lower labial segment alignment. RESULTS: The GI and the PI scores were significantly smaller on the side where the retainer was placed incisally (P = 0.004, P < 0.001, respectively). There was no statistical difference in the average Irregularity Index (IRI) and the retainer's failure rate between the two sides (P = 0.52, P = 0.76, respectively). CONCLUSION: Placing lower fixed retainers in the incisal third will improve the lower labial segment oral hygiene and gingival health in the lingual area without affecting the efficiency or the integrity of the retainers. This trial was not registered Null Hypothesis: Placing the lower permanent retainer in the middle of the lingual surfaces of the lower labial segment' teeth or in the incisal third will not affect the gingival health of the lower incisors.

Comparison of speech changes caused by four different orthodontic retainers: a crossover randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the influence of four different maxillary removable orthodontic retainers on speech. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria for sample selection were: 20-40-year subjects with acceptable occlusion, native speakers of Portuguese. The volunteers (n=21) were divided in four groups randomized with a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio. The four groups used, in random order, the four types of retainers full-time for 21 days each, with a washout period of 7-days. The removable maxillary retainers were: conventional wraparound, wraparound with an anterior hole, U-shaped wraparound, and thermoplastic retainer. Three volunteers were excluded. The final sample comprised 18 subjects (11 male; 7 female) with mean age of 27.08 years (SD=4.65). The speech evaluation was performed in vocal excerpts recordings made before, immediately after, and 21 days after the installation of each retainer, with auditory-perceptual and acoustic analysis of formant frequencies F1 and F2 of the vowels. Repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman with Tukey tests were used for statistical comparison. RESULTS: Speech changes increased immediately after conventional wraparound and thermoplastic retainer installation, and reduced after 21 days, but not to normal levels. However, this increase was statistically significant only for the wraparound with anterior hole and the thermoplastic retainer. Formant frequencies of vowels were altered at initial time, and the changes remained in conventional, U-shaped and thermoplastic appliances after three weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The thermoplastic retainer was more harmful to the speech than wraparound appliances. The conventional and U-shaped retainers interfered less in speech. The three-week period was not sufficient for speech adaptation.

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.

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.

An in vitro comparison of the dimensional stability of four 3D-printed models under various storage conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the dimensional stability of various 3D-printed models derived from resin and plant-based, biodegradable plastics (PLA) under specific storage conditions for a period of up to 21 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different printing materials, including Draft V2, study model 2, and Ortho model OD01 resins as well as PLA mineral, were evaluated over a 21-week period. Eighty 3D-printed models were divided equally into two groups, with one group stored in darkness and the other exposed to daylight. All models were stored at a constant room temperature (20°C). Measurements were taken at 7-week intervals using the Inspect 3D module in OnyxCeph software (Image Instruments GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany). RESULTS: Dimensional change was noted for all of the models with shrinkage of up to 0.26 mm over the study period. Most contraction occured from baseline to T1, although significant further contraction also arose from T1 to T2 (P < .001) and T1 to T3 (P < .001). More shrinkage was observed when exposed to daylight overall and for each resin type (P < .01). The least shrinkage was noted with Ortho model OD01 resin (0.16 mm, SD = 0.06), and the highest level of shrinkage was observed for Draft V2 resin (0.23 mm, SD = 0.06; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Shrinkage of 3D-printed models is pervasive, arising regardless of the material used (PLA or resin) and being independent of the brand or storage conditions. Consequently, immediate utilization of 3D printing for orthodontic appliance purposes may be preferable, with prolonged storage risking the manufacture of inaccurate orthodontic retainers and appliances.

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.

Impact of fixed orthodontic retainers on oral health-related quality of life: a longitudinal prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of orthodontic retainers on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in the short and long terms after orthodontic treatment. METHODS: Data from 45 patients up to three years after orthodontic treatment (T0) were analyzed. Patients were reassessed four years (T1) after T0. OHRQoL was measured using the OHIP-14 (Oral Health Impact Profile-14) questionnaire. The presence of a fixed retainer in the upper and/or lower arches, sex, and age were the predictive variables evaluated at T0 and T1. The occurrence of retainer fracture at T0 was clinically evaluated. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical examination on T1 was not possible, so the OHIP-14 and the self-perception of changes in teeth position and fracture of retainers were examined using an on-line questionnaire. RESULTS: At the initial examination, the presence of upper retainers had a negative impact on quality of life (p=0.018). The OHIP-14 value increased significantly from T0 to T1 (p=0.014), regardless of the presence of retainers. The fracture or debonding of the retainer reported by the patient was the only variable that had a negative impact on OHRQoL (p=0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of fixed upper retainers suggests a negative impact on the quality of life of the orthodontic patient after the end of orthodontic treatment. This impact, however, is negligible in the long term, except when associated with fracture or debonding. This study emphasizes the need for continuous follow-up of orthodontic patients during the retention 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.

Elemental composition, corrosion resistance and mechanical properties of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers.

PURPOSE: To investigate the elemental composition, corrosion resistance, and mechanical properties of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) retainers versus conventional fixed retainers (FRs). METHODS: Eight different retainer wires were investigated. Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy was used to determine the elemental composition. Leakage was analysed according to ISO 10271:2020 guidelines. Hardness was tested using the Vickers method with a load of 0.3 kg. The tensile force and tensile strength were evaluated. Multiple comparisons among wires of hardness, tensile force, and strength were conducted using the Welch t-test, with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Nickel was present in all wires. The CAD-CAM-FR wire, which contained more nickel than the other wires, had no measurable leakage. The gold-plated wires had the highest total leakage, but did not exceed the ISO standard limit. The hardness of the stainless-steel twisted wires was the highest and that of the CAD-CAM-FR wire was the lowest. The tensile strength of the CAD-CAM-FR wire was significantly lower than that of the other wires and similar to the other twisted-wire retainers. CONCLUSION: The CAD-CAM-FR wire is likely to have high corrosion resistance and flexibility due to its low hardness.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).