-
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 -
Progress in Orthodontics Dec 2016In the view of the widespread acceptance of indefinite retention, it is important to determine the effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers on periodontal... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
In the view of the widespread acceptance of indefinite retention, it is important to determine the effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers on periodontal health, survival and failure rates of retainers, cost-effectiveness, and impact of orthodontic retainers on patient-reported outcomes.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was undertaken based on a defined electronic and gray literature search strategy (
PROSPERO
CRD42015029169). The following databases were searched (up to October 2015); MEDLINE via OVID, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, BBO, ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis database. Randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series (minimum sample size of 20) with minimum follow-up periods of 6 months reporting periodontal health, survival and failure rates of retainers, cost-effectiveness, and impact of orthodontic retainers on patient-reported outcomes were identified. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of included trials.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were identified, 18 randomized controlled trials and 6 prospective cohort studies. Of these, only 16 were deemed to be of high quality. Meta-analysis was unfeasible due to considerable clinical heterogeneity and variations in outcome measures. The mean failure risk for mandibular stainless steel fixed retainers bonded from canine to canine was 0.29 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.26, 0.33) and for those bonded to canines only was 0.25 (95 % CI: 0.16, 0.33). A meta-regression suggested that failure of fixed stainless steel mandibular retainers was not directly related to the period elapsed since placement (P = 0.938).
CONCLUSION
Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to elucidate the benefits and potential harms associated with orthodontic retainers.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Mandible; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontics, Corrective; Periodontal Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stainless Steel; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27459974
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0137-x -
Australian Dental Journal Mar 2017Maintaining teeth in their corrected positions following orthodontic treatment can be extremely challenging. Teeth have a tendency to move back towards the original... (Review)
Review
Maintaining teeth in their corrected positions following orthodontic treatment can be extremely challenging. Teeth have a tendency to move back towards the original malocclusion as a result of periodontal, gingival, occlusal and growth related factors. However, tooth movement can also occur as a result of normal age changes. Because orthodontics is unable to predict which patients are at risk of relapse, those which will remain stable and the extent of relapse that will occur in the long-term, clinicians need to treat all patients as if they have a high potential to relapse. To reduce this risk, long term retention is advocated. This can be a significant commitment for patients, and so retention and the potential for relapse must form a key part of the informed consent process prior to orthodontic treatment. It is vital that patients are made fully aware of their responsibilities in committing to wear retainers as prescribed in order to reduce the chance of relapse. If patients are unable or unwilling to comply as prescribed, they must be prepared to accept that there will be tooth positional changes following treatment. There is currently insufficient high quality evidence regarding the best type of retention or retention regimen, and so each clinician's approach will be affected by their personal, clinical experience and expertise, and guided by their patients' expectations and circumstances.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontics, Corrective; Recurrence
PubMed: 28297088
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12475 -
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 -
Brazilian Dental Journal 2012Open bite has fascinated Orthodontics due to the difficulties regarding its treatment and maintenance of results. This anomaly has distinct characteristics that, in...
Open bite has fascinated Orthodontics due to the difficulties regarding its treatment and maintenance of results. This anomaly has distinct characteristics that, in addition to the complexity of multiple etiological factors, have aesthetic and functional consequences. Within this etiological context, several types of mechanics have been used in open bite treatment, such as palatal crib, orthopedic forces, occlusal adjustment, orthodontic camouflage with or without extraction, orthodontic intervention using mini-implants or mini-plates, and even orthognathic surgery. An accurate diagnosis and etiological determination are always the best guides to establish the objectives and the ideal treatment plan for such a malocclusion. This report describes two cases of open bite. At the end of the treatment, both patients had their canines and molars in Class I occlusion, normal overjet and overbite, and stability during the posttreatment period.
Topics: Adolescent; Cephalometry; Child; Deglutition Disorders; Extraoral Traction Appliances; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Mandible; Mouth Breathing; Open Bite; Orthodontic Retainers; Palatal Expansion Technique; Patient Care Planning; Speech Disorders; Tongue Habits; Tooth Ankylosis; Tooth Eruption, Ectopic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Movement Techniques; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23338275
DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402012000600024 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old ('early treatment' in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old ('late treatment' in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic braces.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 27 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 27 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 27 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of orthodontic treatments to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. We included trials that compared early treatment in children (two-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces versus late treatment in adolescents (one-phase) with any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces, and trials that compared any type of orthodontic braces or head-braces versus no treatment or another type of orthodontic brace or appliance (where treatment started at a similar age in the intervention groups).We excluded trials involving participants with a cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial deformity/syndrome, and trials that recruited patients who had previously received surgical treatment for their Class II malocclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analyses including two or three studies and the random-effects model for more than three studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 RCTs based on data from 1251 participants.Three trials compared early treatment with a functional appliance versus late treatment for overjet, ANB and incisal trauma. After phase one of early treatment (i.e. before the other group had received any intervention), there was a reduction in overjet and ANB reduction favouring treatment with a functional appliance; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no difference between groups in final overjet (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.51, P = 0.18; 343 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.43; 347 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Early treatment with functional appliances reduced the incidence of incisal trauma compared to late treatment (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95; 332 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The difference in the incidence of incisal trauma was clinically important with 30% (51/171) of participants reporting new trauma in the late treatment group compared to only 19% (31/161) of participants who had received early treatment.Two trials compared early treatment using headgear versus late treatment. After phase one of early treatment, headgear had reduced overjet and ANB; however, when both groups had completed treatment, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in overjet (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.12; 238 participants) (low-quality evidence) or ANB (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.26; 231 participants) (low-quality evidence). Early (two-phase) treatment with headgear reduced the incidence of incisal trauma (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80; 237 participants) (low-quality evidence), with almost half the incidence of new incisal trauma (24/117) compared to the late treatment group (44/120).Seven trials compared late treatment with functional appliances versus no treatment. There was a reduction in final overjet with both fixed functional appliances (MD -5.46 mm, 95% CI -6.63 to -4.28; 2 trials, 61 participants) and removable functional appliances (MD -4.62, 95% CI -5.33 to -3.92; 3 trials, 122 participants) (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in final ANB between fixed functional appliances and no treatment (MD -0.53°, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.22; 3 trials, 89 participants) (low-quality evidence), but removable functional appliances seemed to reduce ANB compared to no treatment (MD -2.37°, 95% CI -3.01 to -1.74; 2 trials, 99 participants) (low-quality evidence).Six trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with Twin Block versus other appliances and found no difference in overjet (0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.76; 4 trials, 259 participants) (low-quality evidence). The reduction in ANB favoured treatment with a Twin Block (-0.56°, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.16; 6 trials, 320 participants) (low-quality evidence).Three trials compared orthodontic treatment for adolescents with removable functional appliances versus fixed functional appliances and found a reduction in overjet in favour of fixed appliances (0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; two trials, 154 participants) (low-quality evidence), and a reduction in ANB in favour of removable appliances (-1.04°, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.49; 3 trials, 185 participants) (low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. There appear to be no other advantages of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Child; Extraoral Traction Appliances; Humans; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontics, Corrective; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29534303
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of retention, there is a tendency for teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse, almost every person who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 26 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 26 January 2016). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help identify any unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. The outcomes of interest were: how well the teeth were stabilised, failure of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses when studies with similar methodology reported the same outcome. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index to measure relapse.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 studies (1722 participants) in the review. There are also four ongoing studies and four studies await classification. The 15 included studies evaluated four comparisons: removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies); different types of fixed retainers (four studies); different types of removable retainers (eight studies); and one study compared a combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four studies had an unclear risk of bias and seven studies had a high risk of bias. Removable versus fixed retainers Thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03). This was based on one trial with 84 participants that was at high risk of bias; it was low quality evidence. Results on retainer failure were inconsistent. There was evidence of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; one trial, 84 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence), but participants found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60). Fixed versus fixed retainersThe studies did not report stability, adverse effects or participant satisfaction. It was possible to pool the data on retention failure from three trials that compared polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer in the lower arch with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57; moderate heterogeneity; three trials, 228 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in failure rates. It was also possible to pool the data from two trials that compared the same types of upper fixed retainers, with a similar finding: RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.78; low heterogeneity; two trials, 174 participants, low quality evidence). Removable versus removable retainersOne study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainer showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (full-time) (both low quality evidence).In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers. Other retainer comparisonsAnother study with a low risk of bias looked at three different approaches to retention for people with crowding, but normal jaw relationships. The study found that there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers full-time provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants.Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontics, Corrective; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Migration
PubMed: 26824885
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002283.pub4 -
American Journal of Orthodontics and... Apr 2016A man, aged 28 years 9 months, came for an orthodontic consultation for a skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB angle, -3°) with a modest asymmetric Class II and...
A man, aged 28 years 9 months, came for an orthodontic consultation for a skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB angle, -3°) with a modest asymmetric Class II and Class III molar relationship, complicated by an anterior crossbite, a deepbite, and 12 mm of asymmetric maxillary crowding. Despite the severity of the malocclusion (Discrepancy Index, 37), the patient desired noninvasive camouflage treatment. The 3-Ring diagnosis showed that treatment without extractions or orthognathic surgery was a viable approach. Arch length analysis indicated that differential interproximal enamel reduction could resolve the crowding and midline discrepancy, but a miniscrew in the infrazygomatic crest was needed to retract the right buccal segment. The patient accepted the complex, staged treatment plan with the understanding that it would require about 3.5 years. Fixed appliance treatment with passive self-ligating brackets, early light short elastics, bite turbos, interproximal enamel reduction, and infrazygomatic crest retraction opened the vertical dimension of the occlusion, improved the ANB angle by 2°, and achieved excellent alignment, as evidenced by a Cast Radiograph Evaluation score of 28 and a Pink and White dental esthetic score of 3.
Topics: Adult; Cephalometry; Enamel Microabrasion; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Male; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Retainers; Overbite; Patient Care Planning; Tooth Movement Techniques; Treatment Outcome; Vertical Dimension
PubMed: 27021460
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.042