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.

Retention efficacy and patient experience with customized clear retainer and wrap-around circumferential retainer among non-extraction orthodontic patients: A 12-month follow-up cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate retention efficacy by assessing retention stability and patient perspectives according to type of circumferential retainer: the wrap-around circumferential retainer (WCR) and customized clear retainer (CCR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cohort follow-up study involved 52 patients aged 18-62 who underwent fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment without extractions or orthognathic surgery. Following screening consenting participants were divided into WCR and CCR groups. All participants before follow-up received fixed retainers for the upper and lower anteriors and respective removable retainers within 2 weeks post-debond. Intraoral scans and lateral cephalograms were taken immediately after debonding (T0) and again 12 months later. Dentoalveolar changes in several measurements were compared to evaluate retention efficacy. Surveys were conducted at 1 month (T1) and 12 months (T2) post-debonding to assess changes in patient experiences. Outcome assessments were blinded. Paired T-tests and independent T-tests were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of dentoalveolar measurements, respectively. Survey responses were analysed using the Pearson Chi-Square test. RESULTS: The final assessment included 32 participants. Model analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups, except for maxillary intermolar width (p = .033). In the WCR group, the cephalometric analysis indicated a significant increase in the incisor mandibular plane angle (p = .002) and a decrease in the interincisal angle (p = .014), while changes in the CCR group were statistically non-significant. Patient attitude evaluation showed similar trends for wear time and overall satisfaction. However, a higher percentage of respondents in the WCR group reported irritation when wearing the retainers (p = .037) at T1 and discomfort related to speech (p = .038) at T2. CONCLUSIONS: CCR showed better retention efficacy in terms of lower incisor inclination. Patients experienced relatively less irritation and speech discomfort with CCRs.

Assessment of wear characteristics, longevity and stiffness of Essix-type retainers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare four commercially available Essix-type retainers in terms of longevity, wear characteristics, stiffness and their range of rigidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An in vitro study was conducted at Queen Mary University of London. Four groups of thermoplastic materials were included: Duran (PETG), Essix C + (Polypropylene), Vivera and Zendura (Polyurethane). A working typodont was fabricated to evaluate surface wear characteristics using a wear machine with a customized jig. Retainers were measured for tensile test, and water absorption was measured at five different time points up to 6 months after initial immersion in two different physical states and two different solutions. Hydrolytic degradation was also evaluated using FTIR spectroscopy. RESULTS: Essix C + was the most flexible retainer with Vivera the stiffest material. Zendura and Essix C + had the most surface wear (413 µm ± 80 and 652 µm ± 12, respectively) with absorption rates of up to 15 wt% in artificial saliva occurring with Zendura. Only Essix C + displayed signs of degradation following water absorption. CONCLUSIONS: All materials had characteristic levels of flexibility and were susceptible to water absorption. Duran 1.5 mm performed similarly to Vivera in relation to stiffness and wear properties. While Zendura and Vivera have similar chemical structures, they exhibited differences concerning wear resistance and water absorption. Further clinical research evaluating the clinical relevance of these laboratory findings is required. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Characteristic patterns of wear and rigidity of four commercially available Essix-type retainers were observed. This information should help in the tailoring of retainer material on a case-by-case basis considering treatment-related factors and patient characteristics including parafunctional habits.

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.

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).

Tooth mobility restriction by multistranded and CAD/CAM retainers-an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: Orthodontic retainers should restrict physiological tooth mobility as little as possible. While this has been investigated for multistranded retainers, there is a lack of data for novel CAD/CAM retainers. To address this, the present study compared the restriction of physiological tooth mobility in multistranded retainers and different CAD/CAM retainers. MATERIAL/METHODS: One group of multistranded (n = 8) and five groups of CAD/CAM retainers (nickel-titanium (NiTi), titanium grade 5 (Ti5), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), zirconia (ZrO2), and cobalt-chromium (CoCr); each n = 8) bonded from canine to canine were investigated for their influence on vertical and horizontal tooth mobility using an in vitro model of a lower arch in a universal testing machine. Load-deflection curves were determined and statistically analysed. RESULTS: All retainers restricted tooth mobility to varying extents. The retainers had less of an influence on vertical tooth mobility, with less of a difference between retainers (14%-38% restriction). In contrast, significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences were observed between retainers in the restriction of horizontal tooth mobility. ZrO2 retainers had the greatest impact, restricting horizontal tooth mobility by 82% (68 ± 20 µm/100N), followed by CoCr (75%, 94 ± 26 µm/100N) and PEEK (73%, 103 ± 28 µm/100N) CAD/CAM retainers, which had comparable effects on horizontal tooth mobility. Ti5 (54%, 175 ± 66 µm/100N) and NiTi (34%, 248 ± 119 µm/100N) CAD/CAM retainers had less of an influence on horizontal tooth mobility, and were comparable to multistranded retainers (44%, 211 ± 77 µm/100N). LIMITATIONS: This is an in vitro study, so clinical studies are needed to draw clinical conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Multistranded and CAD/CAM retainers have different effects on tooth mobility in vitro. These effects should be further explored in future in vivo studies.

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.

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.

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.

The effects of fulvic acids and low-level laser therapy on orthodontic retention in rats.

BACKGROUND: Shortening retention time and minimizing relapse rates are ongoing challenges in orthodontics. This study investigated the effects of natural fulvic acids (FAs) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on orthodontic retention in rats. METHODS: Seventy-two male Sprague-Dawley rats underwent mesial movement of the left maxillary first molar using a 50 g force via a nickel-titanium tension spring. After three weeks of movement, the rats entered the retention phase with retainer wires and were divided into four groups: Control (no intervention), FAs (80 mg/kg orally daily), LLLT (808 nm laser twice weekly), and FAs + LLLT (both treatments). Retainers were removed on days 7, 14, and 21 for a 3-day relapse assessment. Maxillary impressions were analyzed for relapse rates using 3Shape software, alongside histological and immunohistochemical evaluations of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) expression in periodontal tissues, with differences among groups analyzed using an ordinary two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The relapse rate decreased over time, particularly at 10, 17, and 24 days (p < 0.001). The FAs group did not significantly affect relapse rates compared to the control group (p = 0.084). In contrast, both the LLLT and FAs + LLLT groups significantly reduced relapse rate (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between these groups (p = 0.555). Histological examination revealed active osteoclasts on day 10, decreasing by days 17 and 24. The LLLT and FAs + LLLT groups showed less local cementum resorption and better periodontal fiber arrangement. All treatment groups significantly increased BMP-2 expression (P < 0.05) compared to controls. with LLLT and FAs + LLLT differing significantly from FAs (P < 0.001), though no difference was observed between LLLT and FAs + LLLT (P = 0.578). CONCLUSIONS: FAs did not significantly reduce relapse rate with retainers, while LLLT effectively reduced relapse rates, showing no additional benefit from combining FAs with LLLT. Both FAs and LLLT increased BMP-2 expression in PDL fibroblasts but with no synergistic effect.

Comparison of light transmittance and color changes between polyurethane and copolyester retainer materials after staining and destaining.

BACKGROUND: Retainers are the only effective approach to prevent orthodontic relapse. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in color and light-transmittance of rough and smooth thermoformed polyurethane and copolymer retainer samples after staining in different solutions and destaining with different approaches. METHODS: Four hundred copolyester (Essix® ACE) and 400 polyurethane (Zendura®) samples with different surface textures, smooth and rough, were stained in 4 different solutions (n = 100 per solution) over 28 days. Each of the four groups of 100 stained samples of each material was subdivided into 5 groups of 20 samples and subjected to different destaining solutions. Light transmittance and color changes were evaluated using a spectrometer and a spectrophotometer. Mean differences were compared using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and posthoc multiple comparison tests at P = 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences in light transmittance were found between both untreated materials. Both materials were stained in a similar fashion and showed no significant differences between two materials after staining. Coffee and tea stained both materials more significantly than wine, but there was a significant difference of changes of color and light transmittance between rough and smooth surfaces during the destaining in coffee- and tea-stained samples of copolyester material. All destaining solutions were effective at removing all stains on the samples. The surface roughness of the material plays a significant role in the ability of the materials to be destained, demonstrating a more significant greater effect on cleaning rough samples for improvements in light-transmittance and greater changes in color. CONCLUSIONS: This study concluded that the surface of materials plays a significant role in the material destaining and staining. In addition, the different polymers used for retainer fabrication exhibited different responses during the destaining process depending on types of stains.

Biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguinis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus casei, and Candida Albicans on 5 thermoform and 3D printed orthodontic clear aligner and retainer materials at 3 time points: an in vitro study.

INTRODUCTION: Orthodontic clear aligners and retainers have numerous advantages that is making them ever increasingly popular. However, they might, similar to any other oral appliance, contribute to biofilm formation and finally dental caries or white spot lesions or gingival inflammations. The literature on biofilm formation on orthodontic clear appliances is very scarce and limited to a few microorganisms and materials. Therefore, this experimental study evaluated the biofilm formation on 5 thermoformed and 3D printed CAD/CAM orthodontic retainers in 3 intervals. METHODS: In this in vitro study, 345 specimens (270 test discs and 45 negative controls) were created from fabricated retainers. Retainers included a 3D printed CAD/CAM material (Detax) and four thermoformed retainers [Erkodent (polyethylene terephthalate glycol [PETG]); EasyVac (polyethylene); DB (polyester based on terephthalic acid); and Clear Tech]. They were all 1 mm thick, and all completely fabricated, i.e., heated or printed. The discs were placed in 96-well plates. Microorganisms were cultured on 270 discs for 24 h (90 discs), 72 h (90 other discs), and 5 days or 120 h (90 other discs). Biofilm formation of the strains and negative controls was measured using the microtiter plate assay by ELISA reading. The microbes' ability to produce biofilm was categorized based on the comparison of average optical density (OD) of tests versus a cut-off point OD (ODc) calculated as the average of the OD of corresponding negative controls plus 3× its standard deviation: non-biofilm former [OD ≤ ODc], weak biofilm former [ODc < OD ≤ (2 × ODc)], moderate biofilm former [(2 × ODc) < OD ≤ (4 × ODc)], and strong biofilm former [(4 × ODc) < OD]. These were also converted to ranked scores between zero (no biofilm) and 3. The difference between ODs with control ODs were calculated. These were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA, 2-way ANOVA, and Tukey tests (α = 0.05, α = 0.008). RESULTS: The 3-way ANOVA showed that the overall difference among the ΔODs of 5 retainers (all microorganisms and all intervals combined, n = 270) was not significant (F = 1.860, P = 0.119). Nevertheless, the difference among 3 intervals (F = 31.607, P = 0.0000) and the difference among the 6 microorganisms (F = 24.044, P = 0.0000) were significant. According to the Tukey test, the differences between the 1st interval with either of the other two intervals was significant (both P values = 0.000). There were significant differences between Candida albicans with all other organisms (all 5 P values = 0.0000). All other pairwise comparisons were insignificant (all 10 P values ≥ 0.1). After taking the averages of the 3 intervals, the order of the biofilm generation for different materials were as follows: Detax (average score: 1.56), Easyvac (1.67), Erkodent (1.78), Clear Tech (1.83), BD (2.28). CONCLUSIONS: As far as these 6 microorganisms are of concern, there might not be a significant overall difference among the clear retainer materials tested in this study. A significant overall increase was observed between the first and third days, which later did not significantly increase more until day 5. The Candida albicans biofilm was more intense than the tested 5 bacteria, which themselves showed rather similar growth patterns to each other.

CAD/CAM-BASED FIXED LINGUAL ORTHODONTIC RETAINERS MAY BE AS EFFECTIVE AS CONVENTIONAL FIXED RETAINERS.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Bardideh E, Ghorbani M, Shafaee H, Saeedi P, Younessian F. A comparison of CAD/CAM- based fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2023 Sep 18;45(5):545-557. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjad033. PMID: 37471113. SOURCE OF FUNDING: The study was not funded. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis.

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.

A comparison of CAD/CAM-based fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Comparing computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers and conventional fixed retainers for their effectiveness in orthodontic patients using systematic review and meta-analysis of literature. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane's CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Ovid, and LILACS up to May 2023, with no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that complied with PICO questions were included, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using custom-piloted forms, relevant data were retrieved from the included studies. Then a random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis was used to pool the results. Primary outcomes were stability of treatment results measured through dental cast measurements and periodontal status, while secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 601 participants were included in the review. In the short term (≤6 months), the meta-analysis showed no significant differences in inter-canine distance or arch length between CAD/CAM and conventional fixed retainers in mandibular retainers. However, for Little's irregularity index, single-stranded stainless-steel retainers were notably worse than Ni-Ti CAD/CAM retainers at 3 and 6 months, while multi-stranded stainless-steel retainers only diverged from CAD/CAM at the 6-month milestone, despite the overall clinical inconsequence of these changes. CAD/CAM retainers were associated with a lower plaque index than traditional retainers but no significant difference in gingival index. Failure rates did not differ significantly between CAD/CAM and other types of retainers in mandibular retainers. Nonetheless, one study had a high amount of CAD/CAM retainer failures leading to the study being stopped. CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, CAD/CAM fixed retainers show promise as an alternative to traditional retainers. They may enhance periodontal health, as indicated by lower plaque index scores than conventional retainers. However, extensive research is needed to determine the long-term durability and effectiveness of CAD/CAM retainers in orthodontic treatment, particularly regarding their failure rate. Until comprehensive evidence is available, the use of CAD/CAM retainers should be tailored for each case. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO with the ID CRD42023412741.