Top

Head & Face Medicine

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Review

What causes failure of fixed orthodontic retention? – systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies

Authors: Maciej Jedliński, Katarzyna Grocholewicz, Marta Mazur, Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska

Published in: Head & Face Medicine | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

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.

Available only for authorised users

Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;108(2):207–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70085-4.CrossRef

Meade MJ, Millett D. Retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers among specialist orthodontists. J Orthod. 2013;40(4):318–25. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000066.CrossRefPubMed

Johnston CD, Littlewood SJ. Retention in orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2015;218(3):119–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.47.CrossRefPubMed

Bondemark L, Holm AK, Hansen K, Axelsson S, Mohlin B, Brattstrom V, et al. Long-term stability of orthodontic treatment and patient satisfaction. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(1):181–91. https://doi.org/10.2319/011006-16R.1.CrossRefPubMed

Little RM, Riedel RA, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1988;93(5):423–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90102-3.CrossRef

Andriekute A, Vasiliauskas A, Sidlauskas A. A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention. Prog Orthod. 2017;18(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0185-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lai CS, Grossen JM, Renkema AM, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. Orthodontic retention procedures in Switzerland. Swiss Dent J. 2014;124(6):655–61.PubMed

Birkeland K, Bøe OE, Wisth PJ. Relationship between occlusion and satisfaction with dental appearance in orthodontically treated and untreated groups. A longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(5):509–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/22.5.509.CrossRefPubMed

Albino JE, Lawrence SD, Tedesco LA. Psychological andsocial effects of orthodontic treatment. J Behav Med. 1994;17(1):81–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01856884.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Valiathan M, Hughes E. Results of a survey-based study to identify common retention practices in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137(2):170–7; discussion 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.023.CrossRef

11.

Littlewood SJ. British orthodontic society. BOS response to article on ‘Hold that smile’ campaign. Br Dent J. 2018;224(12):925–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.439.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39. Published 2021 Jan 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.CrossRef

16.

Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes BR. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2000.

17.

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019. p. 205–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch8.CrossRef

19.

Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson JE, Welch V. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of case-control studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011;25:603–5.

20.

Wells GA, Brodsky L, O’Connell D, et al. An evaluation of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale: an assessment tool for evaluating the quality of nonrandomized studies. In: XI International Cochrane Colloquium: Evidence, Health Care and Culture. Book of Abstracts. XI Cochrane Colloquium Barcelona; 2003:26.

21.

Del Re AC. A practical tutorial on conducting meta-analysis in R. Quant Methods Psychol. 2015;11(1):37–50.CrossRef

22.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T. and Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Effect sizes based on binary data (2×2 tables). In introduction to meta-analysis (eds M. Borenstein, L.V. Hedges, J.P.T. Higgins and H.R. Rothstein). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386.ch5.

23.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial comparing placement time and failure over a 6-month period. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014;146(6):701–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.08.015.CrossRef

25.

Gunay F, Oz AA. Clinical effectiveness of 2 orthodontic retainer wires on mandibular arch retention. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;153(2):232–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.019.CrossRef

26.

Bolla E, Cozzani M, Doldo T, Fontana M. Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: a comparison between glass fiber-reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int Orthod. 2012;10(1):16–28. English, French. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2011.12.005.

27.

Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod. 1997 Oct;19(5):501–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/19.5.501.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Nagani NI, Ahmed I, Tanveer F, Khursheed HM, Farooqui WA. Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01167-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Bazargani F, Jacobson S, Lennartsson B. A comparative evaluation of lingual retainer failure bonded with or without liquid resin. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(1):84–7. https://doi.org/10.2319/032811-222.1.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Salehi P, Zarif Najafi H, Roeinpeikar SM. Comparison of survival time between two types of orthodontic fixed retainer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod. 2013;14(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Arash V, Teimoorian M, Farajzadeh Jalali Y, Sheikhzadeh S. Clinical comparison between multi-stranded wires and single strand ribbon wires used for lingual fixed retainers. Prog Orthod. 2020;21(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-020-00315-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Scribante A, Sfondrini MF, Broggini S, D'Allocco M, Gandini P. Efficacy of esthetic retainers: clinical comparison between multistranded wires and direct-bond glass Fiber-reinforced composite splints. Int J Dent. 2011;2011:548356–5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/548356.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Rose E, Frucht S, Jonas IE. Clinical comparison of a multistranded wire and a direct-bonded polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite used for lingual retention. Quintessence Int. 2002;33(8):579–83.PubMed

34.

Gelin E, Seidel L, Bruwier A, Albert A, Charavet C. Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Orthod. 2020;50(6):373–82. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2020.50.6.373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Kartal Y, Kaya B, Polat-Özsoy Ö. Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers : a prospective short-term study. J Orofac Orthop. 2021;82(1):32–41. English. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00243-5.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Scribante A, Gallo S, Turcato B, Trovati F, Gandini P, Sfondrini MF. Fear of the relapse: effect of composite type on adhesion efficacy of upper and lower orthodontic fixed retainers: in vitro investigation and randomized clinical trial. Polymers (Basel). 2020;12(4):963. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12040963.CrossRef

37.

Sfondrini MF, Fraticelli D, Castellazzi L, Scribante A, Gandini P. Clinical evaluation of bond failures and survival between mandibular canine-to-canine retainers made of flexible spiral wire and fiber-reinforced composite. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014 Apr 1;6(2):e145–9. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.51379.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Sobouti F, Rakhshan V, Saravi MG, Zamanian A, Shariati M. Two-year survival analysis of twisted wire fixed retainer versus spiral wire and fiber-reinforced composite retainers: a preliminary explorative single-blind randomized clinical trial. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(2):104–10. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.2.104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Lee KD, Mills CM. Bond failure rates for V-loop vs straight wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;135(4):502–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.037.CrossRef

40.

Taner T, Aksu M. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod. 2012 Aug;34(4):470–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr038.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139(5):614–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.041.CrossRef

42.

Farronato D, Briguglio R, Mangano F, Azzi L, Grossi GB, Briguglio F. Survival of post-treatment canine-to-canine lingual retainers with fiber-reinforced composite resin: a retrospective study. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2014;5(3):81–6.

43.

Kocher KE, Gebistorf MC, Pandis N, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. Survival of maxillary and mandibular bonded retainers 10 to 15 years after orthodontic treatment: a retrospective observational study. Prog Orthod. 2019;20(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0279-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Shaughnessy TG, Proffit WR, Samara SA. Inadvertent tooth movement with fixed lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;149(2):277–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.015.CrossRef

45.

Radlanski RJ, Zain ND. Stability of the bonded lingual wire retainer—a study of the initial bond strength. J Orofac Orthop. 2004;65(4):321–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-004-0401-4.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Butler J, Dowling P. Orthodontic bonded retainers. J Ir Dent Assoc. 2005;51:29–32.PubMed

47.

Pazera P, Fudalej P, Katsaros C. Severe complication of a bonded mandibular lingual retainer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;142(3):406–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.01.019.CrossRef

48.

Arnold DT, Dalstra M, Verna C. Torque resistance of different stainless steel wires commonly used for fixed retainers in orthodontics. J Orthod. 2016;43(2):121–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14653125.2016.1155814.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Eliades T, Makou M, Katsaros C, Bourauel C. In-vitro assessment of the forces generated by lingual fixed retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139(1):44–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.029.CrossRef

50.

Arn ML, Dritsas K, Pandis N, Kloukos D. The effects of fixed orthodontic retainers on periodontal health: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;157(2):156–164.e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.10.010.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Juloski J, Glisic B, Vandevska-Radunovic V. Long-term influenceoffixed lingual retainers on the development of gingival recession:a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(5):658–64. https://doi.org/10.2319/012217-58.1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Torkan S, Oshagh M, Khojastepour L, Shahidi S, Heidari S. Clinical and radiographic comparison of the effects of two types of fixed retainers on periodontium—a randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod. 2014;15(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0047-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Levin L, Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Machtei EE. The association of orthodontic treatment and fixed retainers with gingival health. J Periodontol. 2008;79(11):2087–92. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080128.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Pouyanfar H, Tabaii ES, Aghazadeh S, Nobari SPTN, Imani MM. Microtensile bond strength of composite to enamel using universal adhesive with/without acid etching compared to etch and rinse and self-etch bonding agents. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(11):2186–92. Published 2018 Nov 22. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.427.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

El Gedaily M, Attin T, Wiedemeier DB, Tauböck TT. Impact of different etching strategies on margin integrity of conservative composite restorations in demineralized enamel. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(20):4500. Published 2020 Oct 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13204500.CrossRef

56.

Schubert A, Jäger F, Maltha JC, Bartzela TN. Age effect on orthodontic tooth movement rate and the composition of gingival crevicular fluid : a literature review. J Orofac Orthop. 2020;81(2):113–25. English. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00206-5.CrossRefPubMed

Title: What causes failure of fixed orthodontic retention? – systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies
Authors: Maciej Jedliński
Katarzyna Grocholewicz
Marta Mazur
Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Head & Face Medicine / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1746-160X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-021-00281-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

What causes failure of fixed orthodontic retention? – systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies

Abstract

Background

Questions arise

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions arise

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Imaging predictor of ophthalmic involvement in maxillary sinus cancer during super selective intra-arterial cisplatin infusion and concomitant radiotherapy (RADPLAT)

Hyperspectral imaging and artificial intelligence to detect oral malignancy – part 1 - automated tissue classification of oral muscle, fat and mucosa using a light-weight 6-layer deep neural network

Compliance with the ISO 27020:2019 norm of a sample of currently available preadjusted Orthodontic bracket systems. Are the actual dimensions as expected?

Application of auriculotemporal nerve block and dextrose prolotherapy in exercise therapy of TMJ closed lock in adolescents and young adults

Periodontal effects of maxillary expansion in adults using non-surgical expanders with skeletal anchorage vs. surgically assisted maxillary expansion: a systematic review

Expression of SOX2 and OCT4 in odontogenic cysts and tumors