-
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2023The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may... (Review)
Review
The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may vary in duration. This review aims to present and comment on the available means of retention. The ever-popular, passive Hawley-like removable appliances are credible in maintaining the desired occlusion. Modifications are the removable appliance Wrap Around, having the labial archwire extending to the premolars; the translucent retainer, Astics, a unique aesthetic Hawley-type device; and the reinforced removable retainer, which features a metallic grid reinforcing the acrylic base. Vacuum-formed retainers are easy to fabricate and are readily prescribed. By contrast, fixed retainers are made of orthodontic wire and composite resin bonded on the lingual or palatal surfaces of the anterior teeth. Patient-related variables need evaluation to select the appropriate retainer, while patients ought to realize the importance of retention and comply with offered guidance. Overall, the orthodontist is responsible for keeping the patient informed on the properties and the duration of retention, even before starting active orthodontic treatment.
PubMed: 36832359
DOI: 10.3390/children10020230 -
Polymers Oct 2020A wide range of polymers are commonly used for various applications in prosthodontics. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is commonly used for prosthetic dental... (Review)
Review
A wide range of polymers are commonly used for various applications in prosthodontics. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is commonly used for prosthetic dental applications, including the fabrication of artificial teeth, denture bases, dentures, obturators, orthodontic retainers, temporary or provisional crowns, and for the repair of dental prostheses. Additional dental applications of PMMA include occlusal splints, printed or milled casts, dies for treatment planning, and the embedding of tooth specimens for research purposes. The unique properties of PMMA, such as its low density, aesthetics, cost-effectiveness, ease of manipulation, and tailorable physical and mechanical properties, make it a suitable and popular biomaterial for these dental applications. To further improve the properties (thermal properties, water sorption, solubility, impact strength, flexural strength) of PMMA, several chemical modifications and mechanical reinforcement techniques using various types of fibers, nanoparticles, and nanotubes have been reported recently. The present article comprehensively reviews various aspects and properties of PMMA biomaterials, mainly for prosthodontic applications. In addition, recent updates and modifications to enhance the physical and mechanical properties of PMMA are also discussed.
PubMed: 33049984
DOI: 10.3390/polym12102299 -
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2021The digital technology has contributed to improve and simplify diagnosis, treatment planning and execution in Orthodontics. Among CAD/CAM system (Computer-Aided Design /...
INTRODUCTION
The digital technology has contributed to improve and simplify diagnosis, treatment planning and execution in Orthodontics. Among CAD/CAM system (Computer-Aided Design / Computer-Aided Manufacturing) applications in Orthodontics, we highlight the installation and removal of fixed appliance, clear aligners, customized appliances, and retainers fabricated in digital environment. This approach has several advantages for practitioner and patient, as it enhances appliances precision, directly interferes in treatment time and predictability. Even with all the benefits arising from the digital workflow, few orthodontists have adopted this technique in their clinical practice, most due to high cost and lack of technical preparation for proper execution.
OBJECTIVES
Thus, given the importance of digital technology to improve specialty performance and the still incipient incorporation of digital flow in Orthodontics, the purpose of this article is to describe the available resources and clinical applications of the CAD/CAM technology in Orthodontics.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Humans; Orthodontics; Orthodontists; Patient Care Planning; Workflow
PubMed: 34932716
DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.26.6.e21spe6 -
Head & Face Medicine Jul 2021Orthodontic retention aims to maintain optimal teeth positions after active treatment. The stability is affected by numerous factors, including patients' individual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Orthodontic retention aims to maintain optimal teeth positions after active treatment. The stability is affected by numerous factors, including patients' individual features, thus retention should be adjusted in the most optimal way. Bonding a retainer makes retention less dependent on patient's compliance.
QUESTIONS ARISE
What wire or fiber splint type provides the best treatment stability? What materials should be used to bond the wire or fiber splint? Should be the bonding procedure be direct or indirect? The aim of the study is to assess and synthesize available controlled trials investigating failures of fixed retainers.
METHODS
Literature searches of free text and MeSH terms were performed in Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and PubMed Central in order to find studies, referring to failures of fixed retention (12th February 2021). The keywords were: ("orthodontic retainers AND failure AND wire"). The framework of this systematic review according to PICO was: Population: orthodontic patients; Intervention: fixed orthodontic retainer bonding; Comparison: Different protocols of fixed orthodontic retention applied; Outcomes: failure rate, survival rate. Three different specific scales from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook were used, according to each study type. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of retention using fiber reinforced composite and multistranded steel wire.
RESULTS
The search identified 177 potential articles: 114 from PubMed, 41 from Scopus, 20 from Web of Science and 2 from Embase. After excluding studies inconsistent with selection criteria, 21 studies were included and subjected to qualitative analysis. The main outcome investigated was failure rate. This systematic review has some potential limitations due to the heterogeneity of design between included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
No retainer is proved to guarantee a perfect stability of dental alignment. The retainer should be bonded to all adherent teeth, preferably with additional use of bonding resin. No wire or fiber splint present superior characteristics concerning failure rate. Fiber reinforced composite retention is more sensitive to operator skills, and with imperfect bonding technique, failure rate is much higher. During the first 6 months after bonding retainer the patient should be under frequent control. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO database with the number CRD42021233406.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Humans; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontic Wires
PubMed: 34301280
DOI: 10.1186/s13005-021-00281-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums. Removable retainers can be worn full- or part-time. Retainers vary in shape, material, and the way they are made. Adjunctive procedures are sometimes used to try to improve retention, for example, reshaping teeth where they contact ('interproximal reduction'), or cutting fibres around teeth ('percision'). This review is an update of one originally published in 2004 and last updated in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of different retainers and retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and OpenGrey up to 27 April 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adults who had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. We excluded studies with aligners.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Outcomes were stability or relapse of tooth position, retainer failure (i.e. broken, detached, worn out, ill-fitting or lost), adverse effects on teeth and gums (i.e. plaque, gingival and bleeding indices), and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous data, risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data, and hazard ratios (HR) for survival data, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses when similar studies reported outcomes at the same time point; otherwise results were reported as mean ranges. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index (crookedness of anterior teeth) to measure relapse, judging the minimum important difference to be 1 mm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies, with 4377 participants. The studies evaluated: removable versus fixed retainers (8 studies); different types of fixed retainers (22 studies) or bonding materials (3 studies); and different types of removable retainers (16 studies). Four studies evaluated more than one comparison. We judged 28 studies to have high risk of bias, 11 to have low risk, and eight studies as unclear. We focused on 12-month follow-up. The evidence is low or very low certainty. Most comparisons and outcomes were evaluated in only one study at high risk of bias, and most studies measured outcomes after less than a year. Removable versus fixed retainers Removable (part-time) versus fixed One study reported that participants wearing clear plastic retainers part-time in the lower arch had more relapse than participants with multistrand fixed retainers, but the amount was not clinically significant (Little's Irregularity Index (LII) MD 0.92 mm, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61; 56 participants). Removable retainers were more likely to cause discomfort (RR 12.22; 95% CI 1.69 to 88.52; 57 participants), but were associated with less retainer failure (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98; 57 participants) and better periodontal health (Gingival Index (GI) MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02; 59 participants). Removable (full-time) versus fixed One study reported that removable clear plastic retainers worn full-time in the lower arch did not provide any clinically significant benefit for tooth stability over fixed retainers (LII MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 84 participants). Participants with clear plastic retainers had better periodontal health (gingival bleeding RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; 84 participants), but higher risk of retainer failure (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.38 to 8.47; 77 participants). The study found no difference between retainers for caries. Different types of fixed retainers Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) nitinol versus conventional/analogue multistrand One study reported that CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainers were better for tooth stability, but the difference was not clinically significant (LII MD -0.46 mm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.21; 66 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between retainers for periodontal health (GI MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 2 studies, 107 participants), or retainer survival (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 1 study, 41 participants). Fibre-reinforced composite versus conventional multistrand/spiral wire One study reported that fibre-reinforced composite fixed retainers provided better stability than multistrand retainers, but this was not of a clinically significant amount (LII MD -0.70 mm, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.23; 52 participants). The fibre-reinforced retainers had better patient satisfaction with aesthetics (MD 1.49 cm on a visual analogue scale, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.22; 1 study, 32 participants), and similar retainer survival rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 7 studies; 1337 participants) at 12 months. However, failures occurred earlier (MD -1.48 months, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.08; 2 studies, 103 participants; 24-month follow-up) and more gingival inflammation at six months, though bleeding on probing (BoP) was similar (GI MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; BoP MD 0.33, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.79; 1 study, 40 participants). Different types of removable retainers Clear plastic versus Hawley When worn in the lower arch for six months full-time and six months part-time, clear plastic provided similar stability to Hawley retainers (LII MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.67; 1 study, 30 participants). Hawley retainers had lower risk of failure (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83; 1 study, 111 participants), but were less comfortable at six months (VAS MD -1.86 cm, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.53; 1 study, 86 participants). Part-time versus full-time wear of Hawley There was no evidence of a difference in stability between part-time and full-time use of Hawley retainers (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.68; 1 study, 52 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is low to very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about any one approach to retention over another. More high-quality studies are needed that measure tooth stability over at least two years, and measure how long retainers last, patient satisfaction and negative side effects from wearing retainers, such as tooth decay and gum disease.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Care; Gingivitis; Periodontal Diseases; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37219527
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002283.pub5 -
Journal of Oral Biology and... 2023The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the properties of the different types of orthodontic retainers, identify their differences and define which type of... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the properties of the different types of orthodontic retainers, identify their differences and define which type of device is most effective and less harmful to periodontal health.
METHODS
A literature search was carried out by a reviewer by consulting PubMed, Lilacs, Embase, Medline full text, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Science Direct electronic databases for biomedical and health literature as well as the grey literature and setting up the search from December 2010 without any restriction about articles languages.
RESULTS
The results showed that patients who wear retainers for a long period have significant differences in clinical parameters compared to patients without retainers. The type of retainer chosen also significantly influences the overall periodontal health of patients. Fixed retainers, both glass-fibre reinforced and steel wire retainers, proved to be the retainer type with the highest plaque and calculus accumulation values compared to removable retainers. In addition, among fixed retainers, glass-fibre reinforced retainers proved to be those that mostly promote the plaque and calculus accumulation in the application site.
CONCLUSION
Fixed retainers are the best devices to maintain the alignment of mandibular anterior teeth in the long term. Among these devices, stainless steel lingual retainers, plain or braided, should remain the first choice. Although they are also susceptible to periodontal complications, their effect on periodontal health can be considered statistically insignificant if compared to glass-fibre reinforced retainers which, showing worse periodontal complications, should not be used.
PubMed: 36937559
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.02.015 -
Polymers Aug 2022The oral microbiome can be shifted if the patients wear the acrylic retainers for a lengthy period. It is essential to understand the components of the plaque in order...
The oral microbiome can be shifted if the patients wear the acrylic retainers for a lengthy period. It is essential to understand the components of the plaque in order to forestall the development of dental caries and gingivitis. The aim of this study is to report the bacterial communities that adhere to the acrylic retainers by full-length nanopore 16S sequencing. Six healthy participants were allocated into 2 groups (chemical tablet and brushing groups). Plaque samples were collected from the acrylic retainer surfaces before and after cleaning. The bacterial communities were reported using full-length nanopore 16S sequencing. The results showed that 7 distinct phyla were identified by sequencing. The most prevalent of these was the Firmicutes. We found a total of 72 genera. The most common microorganism across all samples was Streptococcus, followed by Neisseria, Rothia, and Gemella. The beta diversity showed a significant difference between before and after cleaning (p < 0.05). This study revealed the novel finding that a combination of chemical and mechanical cleaning methods was the most effective method of eliminating retainer biofilms. Moreover, retainer cleaning tablets did not alter the homeostatic balance of the bacterial communities adhering to the acrylic retainers.
PubMed: 36080658
DOI: 10.3390/polym14173583 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2022Before the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination fixed orthodontic devices, such as brackets and wires, cause challenges not only for the orthodontist but also...
BACKGROUND
Before the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination fixed orthodontic devices, such as brackets and wires, cause challenges not only for the orthodontist but also for the radiologist. Essentially, the MRI-safe scan of the fixed orthodontic tools requires a proper guideline in clinical practice. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine all aspects of MRI-safe scan, including artifact, thermal, and debonding effects, to identify any existing gaps in knowledge in this regard and develop an evidence-based protocol.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was used in this study. The clinical question in "PIO" format was: "Does MRI examination influence the temperature of the orthodontic devices, the size of artifacts, and the debonding force in patients who have fixed orthodontic bracket and/or wire?" The search process was carried out in PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. The search resulted in 1310 articles. After selection according to the eligibility criteria, 18 studies were analyzed by two reviewers. The risk of bias was determined using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool.
RESULTS
Out of the eligible 18 studies, 10 articles examined the heating effect, 6 were about the debonding effect, and 11 measured the size of artifact regarding brackets and wires. Considering the quality assessment, the overall levels of evidence were high and medium. The published studies showed that heating and debonding effects during MRI exposure were not hazardous for patients. As some wires revealed higher temperature changes, it is suggested to remove the wire or insert a spacer between the appliances and the oral mucosa. Based on the material, ceramic and plastic brackets caused no relevant artifact and were MRI-safe. Stainless steel brackets and wires resulted in susceptibility artifacts in the orofacial region and could cause distortion in the frontal lobe, orbits, and pituitary gland. The retainer wires showed no relevant artifact.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the thermal and debonding effects of the fixed orthodontic brackets and wires were irrelevant or resoluble; however, the size of the artifacts was clinically relevant and determined most significantly the feasibility of fixed brackets and wires in MRI examination.
Topics: Artifacts; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel
PubMed: 35854295
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02317-9 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2022Coronavirus disease has subjected the whole of humanity to two years of social isolation and a series of restrictions. These circumstances have led to the use of... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease has subjected the whole of humanity to two years of social isolation and a series of restrictions. These circumstances have led to the use of information technology in an increasingly widespread manner. Even in the dental field, telematic means have been used to respond to emergencies. The aim of this systematic review of the literature is to evaluate the types of orthodontic emergency that occurred most often and how they were managed by teleorthodontics during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary aim is that clinicians will use teleorthodontics not only during pandemics but as an additional tool to manage orthodontics. Out of 1695 articles available on PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane and SciELO, eight articles were selected for this systematic literature review. Google Scholar was used as a secondary source to confirm that there were no additional articles. The screened papers comprised editorials, clinical studies, cross-sectional studies and retrospective studies in Italian, English or Spanish language. The articles showed that the means by which patients most often communicated with their orthodontists were voice calls and smartphone applications such as WhatsApp Messenger. Through these media, patients communicated their orthodontic emergencies. These mainly involved fixed multibracket appliances and the most common issues were discomfort and pain, fracture or loss of the appliance, protruding distal ends of archwires, brackets, tubes and bands or retainer detachment. Through teleorthodontics, patients could solve these issues by using orthodontic relief wax, cutting the protruding distal ends of the archwire with a nail clipper or a stronger cutter and removing or replacing detached bands, brackets, tubes or metallic ligature with a clean tweezer. In situations where personal contact is limited, teleorthodontics represents a valuable aid for professionals and patients facing orthodontic emergencies. The hope is that it may continue to represent a valuable aid for patients with difficulties in planning an in-office visit.
PubMed: 35742159
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10061108 -
Journal of Taibah University Medical... Oct 2022This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of four cleaning agents on the flexural modulus and light transmittance properties of polypropylene and copolyester...
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of four cleaning agents on the flexural modulus and light transmittance properties of polypropylene and copolyester thermoplastic retainer materials after long-term exposure.
METHODS
A total of 120 pieces of standardized copolyester and polypropylene retainer materials were tested after being thermoformed. They were divided equally into six subgroups: as-received, artificial saliva, chlorhexidine, alcohol-based and alcohol-free mouthwashes, and Retainer Brite®. The pieces were subjected to a cleaning process involving 15 minute immersion three times weekly for 3 months. The flexural modulus and light transmittance were then measured for all specimens with three point bending tests and spectrophotometry, respectively. One-way ANOVA and independent samples t-test were applied to compare the means, and Tukey's post hoc test was used in cases of significant differences. The threshold for significance was 0.05.
RESULTS
For each retainer type, the statistical results revealed that the flexural modulus values of the copolyester retainer material significantly differed from those of polypropylene material under chlorhexidine mouthwash, alcohol-based mouthwash, and Retainer Brite® conditions. Copolyester and polypropylene showed significant differences in light transmittance under all conditions. No significant difference in flexural modulus values was observed among conditions, whereas significant differences in light transmittance were observed between alcohol-based mouthwash and the other conditions for copolyester material.
CONCLUSIONS
According to our results, any cleaning agent can be safely used for both materials without affecting the elastic modulus. However, alcohol-based mouthwash decreases the light transmittance of copolyester retainer material.
PubMed: 36050943
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2022.04.005