-
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 -
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 -
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 -
The Angle Orthodontist Nov 2011To assess the frequency and type of upper bonded retainer failure and to identify possible predisposing factors.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the frequency and type of upper bonded retainer failure and to identify possible predisposing factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The records of 466 consecutive patients with upper bonded retainers were analyzed retrospectively with respect to retainer failures and failure type as well as timing of failure, differences among operators, and the number of defects of the multibracket appliances (MB) prior to the retention period.
RESULTS
A total of 58.2% of all patients experienced retainer failures. The average failure odds were 1.26 failures per retainer. The odds were highest for 3-3 retainers (1.37) and lowest for the 1-1 retainer (0.54). The detachment and total loss rates were significantly influenced by operator experience-both rates were lower for experienced practitioners. Total retainer losses occurred more frequently in case of previous MB defects, while retainer fractures were seen more frequently when the retainer included the canines.
CONCLUSIONS
Upper bonded retainer failures are a frequent problem during the retention period (58.2% of patients). Less operator experience correlated with higher failure rates. An increased number of total retainer losses must also be expected with a decreasing number of bonding sites and in cases involving previous MB defects.
Topics: Adolescent; Analysis of Variance; Child; Clinical Competence; Dental Bonding; Equipment Failure; Female; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Male; Maxilla; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Retainers; Retrospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 21657830
DOI: 10.2319/022211-132.1 -
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 Orthodontics Jun 2020To measure patient-reported impact of orthodontic treatment in terms of pre-treatment concerns, treatment experience and treatment outcome.
OBJECTIVE
To measure patient-reported impact of orthodontic treatment in terms of pre-treatment concerns, treatment experience and treatment outcome.
SETTING
Four sites in Yorkshire, including two secondary care settings (Leeds Dental Institute and St Luke's Hospital, Bradford) and two specialist orthodontic practices.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional survey.
PARTICIPANTS
NHS orthodontic patients (aged 12+ years) who have completed comprehensive orthodontic treatment, excluding orthognathic surgery and craniofacial anomalies.
METHODS
Participants were opportunistically identified by the direct clinical care team during scheduled appointments and those eligible were invited to participate. Data were collected using the Orthodontic Patient Treatment Impact Questionnaire (OPTIQ), a validated 12-item measure with questions relating to pre-treatment experience, impact of treatment and outcome from treatment.
RESULTS
Completed questionnaires for analysis included 120 from primary care and 83 from secondary care. The most common pre-treatment concerns were alignment (89%) and being embarrassed to smile (63%). The most common expectations from orthodontic treatment were improved confidence to eat (87%) and smile (72%) in front of others, improved appearance of teeth (85%) and reduced teasing/bullying (63%). Only 67% respondents recalled receiving written information and the lowest recall related to retainer type and length of retention. The most commonly reported complications were sore mouth (68%), fixed appliance breakage (61%) and gingivitis (39%). Treatment caused greatest impact in relation to pain, limitations in eating and effect on speech. Overall satisfaction with orthodontic treatment was reported by 96% of respondents, 87% would have orthodontic treatment again (if needed) and 91% would recommend treatment to a friend.
CONCLUSIONS
The OPTIQ is a useful patient-reported tool to identify pre-treatment concerns and expectations, treatment experience and outcome. Orthodontic treatment leads to high levels of satisfaction.
Topics: Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Orthodontics, Corrective; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32116083
DOI: 10.1177/1465312520904377 -
Clujul Medical (1957) 2015Relapse following orthodontic treatment is a constant concern of orthodontists. Fixed retention is preferred especially for the lower arch by most orthodontists. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Relapse following orthodontic treatment is a constant concern of orthodontists. Fixed retention is preferred especially for the lower arch by most orthodontists.
OBJECTIVES
This review focuses on in vivo studies. The main objective is to determine the survival rates of different types of retainer: glass-fiber reinforced composite resin, polyethylene or multistrand stainless steel wire bonded to each tooth from canine to canine in the mandibular arch. A second objective is to assess which of these types is less likely to cause additional problems and the third objective is to evaluate the factors that may influence retainer survival.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
There were 8 studies identified that matched the objectives stated. Current in vivo studies on survival rate take little notice of the role of the material used for bonding of the fixed retainer. It is not possible to draw a conclusion on reliability of new types of retainers glass fiber reinforced composite resin or polyethylene compared to multistrand stainless steel wire. The multistrand wire remains the gold standard for fixed retention. Although it is a logical outcome that retainer survival is dependent on the application technique, there seems to be no research outcome proving that operator experience, moisture control are essential, nor does patient age or sex have statistically proven effects on survival rates. Adequate studies that involve such aspects should be performed.
PubMed: 26609260
DOI: 10.15386/cjmed-451