Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2021) – 132.50
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2022) – 79.69%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2013, vol. 50, nr 3, July-September, p. 355–361

Publication type: review article

Language: English

Fixed Orthodontic Retention

Stała retencja ortodontyczna

Agnieszka Pękala1,A,B,D,E,F, Ewa Chmielewska1,A,D

1 Private Orthodontic Practice, Inowrocław, Poland

Abstract

The aim of the study is to draw attention to the problem of instability of the results of orthodontic treatment. This article presents recommendations and contraindications for using fixed retention. The most common positions and types of bonded retainers have been presented. Preparatory procedures related to installation of a fixed retainer and retainer installation methods have been described. The effects of such therapy on the condition of the periodontium and dental hard tissue have also been presented. Comparable research has been shown following a 3-year period of retention of four kinds of retainers: fixed retainers made of plain wire and spiral wire bonded only to canines, fixed six-point retainers made of flexible, multistrand wire and removable retainers. The differences in use have been described in terms of: accumulation of plaque and calculus around the wire and along the marginal periodontium, loss of attachment, Little’s index, and failure during the application of a fixed retainer. The research of FSWR retainers and vacuum-formed retainers in contrast to the Schwarz retainer have been presented. The most frequent complications and side effects of retention therapy have been shown. Chemical and photo polymerization composites to cement retainers and the reasons of losing them have been compared. The impact of this kind of therapy on the condition of the soft and hard tissue of the periodontium has been described. The research has proved that, in the case of removable retainers and fixed retainers, a change can be observed in occlusion in the period of retention, however its intensity is not statistically significant.

Streszczenie

Celem pracy jest zwrócenie uwagi na problem niestabilności wyników leczenia ortodontycznego. W artykule zostały przedstawione wskazania i przeciwwskazania do stosowania retencji stałej. Zaprezentowano najczęstsze lokalizacje i rodzaje retainerów klejonych. Opisano procedury przygotowawcze związane z zakładaniem retencji stałej oraz techniki montowania retainerów. Przedstawiono badania porównawcze dotyczące 3-letniej obserwacji, 4 rodzajów aparatów retencyjnych: stałych wykonanych z drutu gładkiego i spiralnego przyklejonego tylko do kłów, retainerów 6-punktowych z drutu giętkiego oraz aparatów retencyjnych ruchomych. Opisano różnice w ich stosowaniu w kontekście gromadzenia płytki i kamienia wokół drutu oraz wzdłuż przyzębia brzeżnego, utraty przyczepu łącznotkankowego, wskaźnika Little’a oraz niepowodzeń w stosowaniu retainerów. Przedstwiono badania nad aparatami FSWR i tłoczonymi próżniowo w porównaniu z płytą Schwarza. Zaprezentowano najczęściej wystepujące powikłania i skutki uboczne terapii retencyjnej. Porównano materiały światłoi chemoutwardzalne do cementowania aparatów oraz przyczyny utraty retainerów. Opisano wpływ tego rodzaju terapii na stan tkanek twardych zębów. Badania pokazują, że zarówno w przypadku stosowania retainerów ruchomych i stałych dochodzi do zmian w okluzji w okresie retencji, ich nasilenie nie jest jednak istotne statystycznie.

Key words

fixed orthodontic retainer, retention, FSWR

Słowa kluczowe

stały retainer ortodontyczny, retencja, FSWR

References (27)

  1. Karłowska I.: Introduction to contemporary orthodontics. PZWL, Warszawa 2011, 303–308 [in Polish].
  2. Proffit W.R., Fields H.W., Sarver D.M.: Contemporary orthodontics. Wyd. Elsevier Urban & Partner, Wrocław 2010, 286–300.
  3. Rakosi T., Graber T.M.: Orthodontic and orthopedic treatment of dental and facial defects. Wyd. Czelej, Lublin 2011, 342–363.
  4. Tyńska M.: Retention procedures in orthodontics. Poradnik Stomatol. 2011, 11, 1, 24–29 [in Polish].
  5. Littlewood S.J., Millett D.T., Doubleday B., Bearn D.R., Wothington H.V.: Orthodontic retention: A systematic review. J. Orthod. 2006, 33, 205–212.
  6. Zachrisson B.U.: Third generation mandibular bonded lingual 3–3 retainer. Ortod. Współ. 2000, 2, 3, 93–98 [in Polish].
  7. McLaughlin R.P., Bennett J.C., Trevisi H.J.: Systematized treatment using straight archwire technique. Retainer removal and retention procedures. Wyd. Czelej, Lublin 2002, 305–317.
  8. Grygiel R., Rucińska-Grygiel B.: Recommendations and contraindications for retainers. Advantages and disadvantages. Magazyn Stomatol. 2001, 11, 3, 52–54 [in Polish].
  9. Bearn D.R.: Bonded orthodontic retainers: A review. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1995, 108, 207–213.
  10. Artun J., Spadafora A.T., Shapiro P.A.: A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur. J. Orthod. 1997, 19, 501–509.
  11. Mikołajczyk M.: The stages of casting fixed retainer preparation. Ortop. Szczęk. Ortodon. 2003, 4, 4–7 [in Polish].
  12. Durka M.: Retention in orthodontic treatment. Nowa Stomatol. 2006, 11, 124–127 [in Polish].
  13. Grygiel R.: Changes of selected parameters of dental arches during treatment with thin archwire permanent retainer during retention period. Pomeranian Medical University. Doctoral thesis 2004 [in Polish].
  14. Butler J., Dowling P.: Orthodontic bondediners. J. Ir. Dent. Assoc. 2005, 51, 1, 29–32.
  15. Pandis N., Fleming P.S., Klaukos D.: Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or polymerization over a 2-year period: A single-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthoped. 2013, 144, 169–175.
  16. Bearn D.R., McCabe J.F., Gordon P.H., Aird J.C.: Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire-composite. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped. 1997, 111, 67–74.
  17. Kaji A., Sekino S., Ho H., Numabe Y.: Influence of mandibular fixed orthodontic retainer on periodontal health. Aust. Orthod. J. 2013, 29, 76–85.
  18. Taner T., Aksu M.: A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur. J. Orthod. 2012, 34, 470–474.
  19. Sifakakis I., Pandis N., Makou M., Eliades T., Bouravel C.: In vitro assessment of the forces generated by lingual fixed retainer. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped. 2011, 139, 44–48.
  20. Renkema A.M., Renkema A., Bronkhorst E.: Long-term effectiveness of canine to canine bonded flexible retainers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped. 2011, 139, 614–621.
  21. Renkema A.M.: Unexpected complications of bonded mandibular lingual retainers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped. 2007, 132, 838–841.
  22. Feilzer A.J.: Facial eczema because of orthodontic fixed retainer wires. Contact Dermatol. 2008, 59, 118–120.
  23. Atack N., Harradine N., Sandy J.R., Ireland A.J.: Which way forward? Fixed or removable lower retainers. Angle Orthod. 2007, 77, 954–959.
  24. Barlin S., Smith R., Reed R., Sandy J., Ireland A.J.: A retrospective randomized double-blind comparison study of the effectiveness of Hawley vs vacuum-formed retainers. Angle Orthod. 2011, 81, 404-409.
  25. Edman T.G., Bondemark L., Lilja-Karlander E.: A randomized controlled trial of three orthodontic retention methods in Class I four premolar extraction cases – stability after 2 years in retention. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2013, 16, 105–115.
  26. Pratt M.C.: Evaluation of retention protocols among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States. Am. J. Orthoped. Dentofac. Orthoped. 2011, 14, 520–526.
  27. Vandevska-Radunovic V., Espeland L., Stenvik A.: Retention: type, duration and need for common guidelines. A survey of Norwegian Orthodontists. Orthodont. 2013, 14, 110–117.
© Wroclaw Medical University