Malmö University Publications
Planned maintenance
A system upgrade is planned for 10/12-2024, at 12:00-13:00. During this time DiVA will be unavailable.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Stability of maxillary anterior teeth after two years of retention in adolescents: a randomised controlled trial comparing two bonded and a vacuum-formed retainer
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology (OD). Natl Hlth Serv, Orthodont Clin, Vaxjo, Sweden.
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology (OD). Publ Dent Hlth, Orthodont Clin, Gavle, Sweden; Uppsala Univ Reg Gavleborg, Ctr Res & Dev, Gavle, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4588-3543
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0009-0001-8816-4952
2021 (English)In: European Journal of Orthodontics, ISSN 0141-5387, E-ISSN 1460-2210, Vol. 43, no 2, p. 152-158Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Retention of the maxillary anterior teeth is commonly recommended to maintain the teeth in their corrected positions. Both fixed and removable retention methods are used, but the certainty of evidence is low.

Objective: To evaluate post-treatment changes in irregularity of the maxillary six anterior teeth and single tooth contact point discrepancy (CPD) of three different retention methods.

Trial design: Three-arm parallel group single-centre randomized controlled trial.

Materials and methods: Ninety patients, 54 girls and 36 boys, were recruited to the study. The inclusion criteria were adolescent patients treated with fixed appliances at least in the maxilla. After gaining informed consent from the patient and their custodians, the patients were randomized to one of three groups: bonded retainer 13–23, bonded retainer 12–22, and removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) covering the maxillary teeth including the second molars. The randomization, prepared by an independent person, used blocks of 30. The primary outcomes were changes in single CPD and Little’s irregularity index (LII) measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts before and after 2-year retention. The study casts were anonymized before assessment and the changes were blinded for the assessor. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. Thus, all randomized patients were incorporated into the final analysis.

Results: The LII and CPDs increased slightly in all three groups without any statistically significant differences between the groups. The VFR group showed a small intercanine width increase and some more changes of canine rotations than in the other groups.

Harms: No harm was observed in any subjects and none of the patients needed retreatment.

Limitations: The trial was a single-centre study and short-term changes were evaluated.

Conclusions: All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity and all the changes found in the three groups were small and considered clinically insignificant. Thus, the null hypothesis was confirmed. All three methods can be recommended.

Trial registration: NCT04616755

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2021. Vol. 43, no 2, p. 152-158
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-39498DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjaa077ISI: 000648939600005PubMedID: 33351886Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85104046692OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-39498DiVA, id: diva2:1520134
Available from: 2021-01-20 Created: 2021-01-20 Last updated: 2024-06-17Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Stability of aligned maxillary anterior teeth after orthodontic treatment: amount of changes with different retention methods and without retention
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Stability of aligned maxillary anterior teeth after orthodontic treatment: amount of changes with different retention methods and without retention
2021 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Well-aligned anterior teeth are the major reason for the patients seeking orthodontic treatment, and keeping teeth aligned and stable afterwards is a goal for the orthodontist and the patient. Relapse after treatment is a common problem, and it is defined as when teeth go back to their previous positions. Removable or fixed retainers have been used to avoid relapse after treatment. It has been common practice to use removable retention to retain anterior teeth in the maxilla. However, in recent decades, it has become increasingly common to retain with bonded retainers.

Almost all previous studies on retention devices in the maxilla were based on removable retainers. Consequently, there existed knowledge gaps and lack of short-term and long-term studies on the capability to maintain the stability of the maxillary anterior teeth with bonded retainers. Hence, the reason for the papers in this study. In addition, it is not known if retentionis needed in all orthodontic patients or if there are patients, based on their initial malocclusion and individual variations, who may not need retention after treatment.

The research questions addressed in this thesis thus originate from knowledgegaps and clinical needs concerning retention strategies after orthodontic treatments. To provide strong clinical evidence, randomised controlled trials (RCT) as well as intention to treat (ITT) methodology has been assessed. The results are expected to be beneficial for the patients who will be offered the most effective retention strategy for maxillary anterior teeth based on patients’ preferences.

In Paper I and II, 45 and 27 adolescents’ patients were collected from the Orthodontic Clinic in Mariestad, Sweden. At the time when Paper Iand II were conducted, there were no studies that had evaluated the longterm effect of bonded retainers in the maxilla. In two RCTs, Paper III and IV, 90 and 63 adolescents’ patients were collected from the Orthodontic Clinic in Växjö, Region Kronoberg, Sweden.

Paper I: The aim was to investigate the amount and pattern of relapse of maxillary anterior teeth previously retained with a bonded retainer.

Paper II: The aim was to investigate the amount and pattern of changes of maxillary anterior teeth seven years post-retention, which previously were retained with a bonded retainer.

Paper III: The aim was to evaluate post-treatment changes in the irregularity of the maxillary six anterior teeth and single tooth Contact Point Discrepancy (CPD) of three different retention methods.

Paper IV: The aim was to evaluate whether retention is needed after orthodontic treatment for impacted maxillary canines and with moderate pre-treatment irregularity in the maxilla.

Key findings in Paper I

• The contact relationship between the laterals and the centrals is the most unstable   contact. Canines are the most stable teeth.

• There was no difference in the relapse pattern between rotational displacements and labiolingual displacement.

Key findings in Paper II

• There was a strong correlation between irregularity at one- and seven-years post-retention. Stable cases one-year post-retention were stable and unstable cases deteriorated with time.

Key findings in Paper III

• All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity and all the changes found in the three groups were small and considered clinically insignificant. Thus, the null hypothesis was confirmed. All three methods can be recommended.

Key findings in Paper IV

• Changes between the retention and the non-retention group were statistically but not clinically significant. Since satisfactory clinical results one-year post-treatment were found in the non-retention group, retention does not appear always to be needed.

• Most of the changes occur within the first 10-week period after treatment with no retention.

Key conclusions and clinical implications

Both removable and bonded retainers are effective for holding teeth inposition and can be used for preventing the relapse. It can be enough toretain with bonded retainer 12-22 instead of 13-23. It might be possibleto avoid retention in selected cases in the short-term, but a longer evaluationperiod is needed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Malmö: Malmö universitet, 2021. p. 84
Series
Doctoral Dissertation in Odontology
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-39500 (URN)10.24834/isbn.9789178771523 (DOI)9789178771516 (ISBN)9789178771523 (ISBN)
Public defence
2021-02-12, Direktsänd, 09:15
Opponent
Note

Note: The papers are not included in the fulltext online

Available from: 2021-01-20 Created: 2021-01-20 Last updated: 2024-03-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Naraghi, SasanGanzer, NielsBondemark, LarsSonesson, Mikael

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Naraghi, SasanGanzer, NielsBondemark, LarsSonesson, Mikael
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
European Journal of Orthodontics
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 182 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf