Objective:  To investigate the amount and pattern of relapse of maxillary front teeth previously retained with a bonded retainer.

Materials and methods:  The study group consisted of 135 study casts from 45 patients. Recordings from study models before treatment (T1), at debonding (T2), and 1 year after removal of the retainer (T3) were present. All patients had been treated with fixed edgewise appliances. The irregularity index (sum of contact point displacement [CPD]) and rotations of front teeth toward the raphe line were calculated at T1, T2, and T3.

Results:  The mean irregularity index at T1 was 10.1 (range 3.0-29.9, SD 5.4). At T2 it was 0.7 (range 0.0-2.1, SD 0.7), and at T3 it was 1.4 (range 0.0-5.1, SD 1.2). Fifty-five teeth in 42 patients were corrected more than 20 degrees between T1 and T2 (mean correction 31.4 degrees range 20.0-61.7), and mean relapse in this group was 7.3 degrees (range 0.0-20.5). Regarding alignment of the maxillary front teeth, the contact relationship between the laterals and centrals seems to be the most critical. A significant positive correlation was found between the amount of correction of incisor rotation and the magnitude of relapse but not between the amount of correction of CPD and the magnitude of relapse. Eighty-four percent of the overcorrected CPDs returned to a desired position.

Conclusions:  Minor or no relapse was noted at the 1-year follow-up.

Objective:: To investigate the amount and pattern of changes of maxillary front teeth 7 years postretention, which previously were retained with a bonded retainer.

Materials and Methods:: The study group consisted of 27 patients. Study models before treatment (T1), at debonding (T2), 1 year after removal of the upper bonded retainer (T3), and 7 years postretention (T4) were present. The irregularity index (sum of contact point displacements) and the rotations of front teeth toward the raphe line were calculated.

Results:: The irregularity index of the maxillary front teeth changes very little or not at all during the first year postretention. Further change long term resulted in an irregularity index of mean 2.0 (range 0.0–5.8). The contact relationship between the laterals and centrals seems to be the most critical. Forty rotated teeth in 21 patients were corrected more than 20°. Mean relapse during the first year postretention was 6.7° (range 0.0°–14.7°). Mean changes during 7 years was 8.2° (range 0.0°–19.3°).

Conclusions:: Relapse of upper front teeth retained with a bonded retainer is minor in both the short and long term. If permanent retention is required after 3 years of retention, it is enough to retain the incisors.

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

Objective: To evaluate whether retention is needed after orthodontic treatment of impacted maxillary canines.

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

Materials and methods: Sixty-three patients, 39 girls and 24 boys, were recruited to the study. The inclusion criteria were patients with at least one impacted or unerupted maxillary canine, and moderate irregularity of the maxillary six anterior teeth according to Little’s index (LI). After gaining informed consent from the patient and their custodians, the patients were randomized to one of two groups, i.e. to a non-retention group or a retention group. The randomization process was prepared and carried out by an independent person not involved in the trial and the randomization used blocks of 20 (10 + 10). Primary outcomes were changes in single contact point discrepancy, and LI measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts 1-year post-treatment. 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. In the non-retention group a 10-week interim period was used to detect patients who eventually have a relapse immediately after treatment. If so, the patient got the arch-wire reinserted. Most patients in the retention group received a vacuum-formed retainer and pretreatment spacing cases got a bonded retainer.

Results: Mean irregularity change was 0.4 mm in the retention and 1.3 mm in the non-retention group (P < 0.001). Maximum change was 2.5 mm in the retention and 3.2 mm in the non-retention group (P < 0.001). Most changes in the non-retention group occurred during the 10-week interim period. In the non-retention group, one patient developed contact point discrepancy of >2 mm during the interim period and was realigned.HarmsOne patient met the stopping guideline criteria. This patient had the arch wire reinserted for 2 months. After realignment, the patient received a retention appliance.LimitationsThe trial was a single-centre study and short-term changes were evaluated.

Conclusions: Changes between the retention and the non-retention group were statistically but not clinically significant. Since satisfactory clinical results 1-year post-treatment were found in the non-retention group, retention does not appear to be needed. The 10-week interim period was useful in detecting patients who might have a relapse immediately after treatment.

Trial registration: The trial was not registered.