ABSTRACT
Background:
Orthodontic retention protocols are crucial for maintaining treatment stability post-orthodontic treatment. However, the optimal retention strategy remains debated.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis of patient records from a tertiary orthodontic center over 5 years was conducted. Variables, including retention protocols employed, duration of retention, and treatment stability, were weighed.
Results:
Fixed retainers were the most commonly utilized retention protocol, followed by removable retainers and combination methods. Although the incidence of treatment relapse appeared higher among patients with removable retainers, the difference did not reach statistical significance. Combination protocols demonstrated comparable treatment stability to fixed retainers.
Conclusion:
This research gives understanding of the effectiveness of orthodontic retention protocols in a tertiary center setting. While fixed retainers remain widely used, removable retainers and combination methods also show promise in maintaining treatment stability. Addressing patient compliance issues and optimizing retention strategies based on individual patient needs are essential for enhancing treatment outcomes.
KEYWORDS: Fixed retainers, orthodontics, removable retainers, retention protocols, treatment stability
INTRODUCTION
Orthodontic treatment aims not only to achieve proper alignment of teeth but also to maintain the achieved results over time. Retention protocols are essential in preventing relapse and ensuring long-term stability following orthodontic treatment. However, the optimal retention strategy remains a subject of debate among orthodontists, with various protocols and devices available for post-treatment maintenance.[1,2,3]
This research seeks to estimate the efficacy of different orthodontic retention protocols in maintaining treatment stability, focusing on a tertiary center setting. The significance of this research lies in addressing the need for evidence-based guidance in selecting the most effective retention methods to minimize relapse and enhance treatment outcomes.[4,5,6]
Throughout the years, numerous retention protocols have been proposed, including fixed retainers, removable retainers, and combination approaches. This research aims to probe how factors, such as patient compliance, period of retention, and type of malocclusion, impact the selection of retention protocols and treatment outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This retrospective research was accomplished at a tertiary orthodontic center, utilizing patient records spanning a 3-year period after the approvals of ethics and consents were taken.
Sample Selection: Patient records were screened based on inclusion criteria, which encompassed individuals who completed orthodontic treatment during the specified timeframe. Exclusion criteria included incomplete records and patients with craniofacial anomalies or syndromes affecting orthodontic outcomes.
Data Collection: Data extracted from patient records included demographic information, orthodontic treatment details, and specifics regarding the retention protocols employed. Variables of interest encompassed the type of retention (fixed, removable, or a combination), duration of retention, and any instances of relapse or complications.
Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate tests, such as Chi-square tests or regression analysis, to assess the association between retention protocols and treatment stability. Patient compliance was also analyzed as a potential factor influencing treatment outcomes.
Subgroup Analysis: Subgroup analysis was conducted based on factors such as malocclusion type, age, and initial treatment duration to identify potential variations in the effectiveness of retention protocols across different patient profiles.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the distribution of orthodontic retention protocols utilized in the research sample along with the corresponding treatment stability outcomes. Among the 175 patients included in the analysis, fixed retainers were employed in 75 cases, removable retainers in 60 cases, and a combination of both in 40 cases. The table also displays the incidence of treatment relapse, with 10 cases (13.3%) observed among those with fixed retainers, 15 cases (25.0%) among those with removable retainers, and 5 cases (12.5%) among those with a combination of retention methods.
Table 1.
Distribution of Orthodontic Retention Protocols and Treatment Stability
| Retention Protocol | Number of Patients | Treatment Stability (Relapse) |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed retainers | 75 | 10 (13.3%) |
| Removable retainers | 60 | 15 (25.0%) |
| Combination | 40 | 5 (12.5%) |
| Total | 175 | 30 (17.1%) |
Table 2 demonstrates the association between different retention protocols and treatment stability, expressed as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and corresponding P values. When compared to fixed retainers (the reference group), patients with removable retainers showed an odds ratio of 1.98 for experiencing treatment relapse, although this association did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.079). Similarly, the odds ratio for treatment relapse among patients with a combination of retention methods was 0.91, indicating no significant difference compared to fixed retainers (P = 0.843).
Table 2.
Association Between Retention Protocol and Treatment Stability
| Retention Protocol | Odds ratio | 95% Confidence interval | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed retainers | Reference | ||
| Removable retainers | 1.98 | 0.91−4.31 | 0.079 |
| Combination | 0.91 | 0.36−2.31 | 0.843 |
DISCUSSION
Orthodontic retention is a critical phase of treatment aimed at maintaining the achieved results and preventing relapse. This research sought to weigh the effectiveness of various orthodontic retention protocols in a tertiary center setting and their impact on treatment stability. The findings provide valuable insights into the selection and optimization of retention strategies to enhance long-term treatment outcomes.
The results indicate that fixed retainers were the most utilized retention protocol among the research sample, followed by removable retainers and a combination of both. Interestingly, although the incidence of treatment relapse appeared higher among patients with removable retainers compared to those with fixed retainers, this difference did not reach statistical significance. This observation suggests that while fixed retainers may offer certain advantages in terms of treatment stability, removable retainers remain a viable option for post-treatment retention.[3,5,6]
The lack of statistical significance in the association between retention protocol and treatment stability may be attributed to several factors. The relatively small sample size might have constrained the statistical power to identify variations between retention protocols. Additionally, the retrospective nature of the research and the reliance on existing patient records may have introduced biases and confounding variables, further influencing the outcomes.[5,6,7]
The findings regarding the effectiveness of fixed retainers in maintaining treatment stability are consistent with previous research demonstrating their superiority in preventing relapse, particularly in the mandibular anterior region. Fixed retainers are bonded directly to the lingual surfaces of teeth, providing continuous force to maintain alignment and preventing individual tooth movement. This passive retention mechanism offers the advantage of requiring minimal patient compliance, thereby reducing the risk of non-compliance-related relapse.[5,6,7,8,9]
On the other hand, removable retainers rely on patient compliance for their effectiveness, requiring consistent wear to prevent relapse. Despite patient education and motivation efforts, compliance with removable retainer wear remains a challenge in clinical practice. Factors, such as discomfort, inconvenience, and forgetfulness, may contribute to inconsistent retainer wear, compromising treatment stability. In this research, the higher incidence of relapse observed among patients with removable retainers underscores the importance of addressing patient compliance issues in post-treatment care.[6,7,8]
The comparable treatment stability observed with combination retention protocols is an interesting finding that warrants further investigation. Combination protocols typically involve the use of both fixed and removable retainers, with the aim of capitalizing on the advantages of each modality. For example, fixed retainers may be used in the mandibular anterior region to prevent relapse, while removable retainers are employed in the maxillary arch for ease of hygiene and patient comfort. While previous studies have reported conflicting findings regarding the efficacy of combination protocols, current results suggest that this approach may offer a viable alternative for maintaining treatment stability.[7,8,9,10]
Limitations: The retrospective design and reliance on existing patient records limited the ability to control for confounding variables and potential biases. Additionally, the relatively small sample size may have restricted the generalizability of findings and the statistical power to detect significant differences between retention protocols. Future examination with larger, prospective cohorts is warranted to validate these results and provide more robust evidence about the effectiveness of orthodontic retention protocols.
CONCLUSION
This research grants beneficial insights into the effectiveness of orthodontic retention protocols in maintaining treatment stability. While fixed retainers remain the most commonly utilized retention modality, removable retainers and combination protocols also demonstrate the potential for maintaining treatment outcomes. Addressing patient compliance issues and optimizing retention strategies based on individual patient needs are essential considerations in post-treatment care. Additional research is needed to determine the optimal retention protocols and enhance long-term treatment outcomes in orthodontics.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Artun J, Grobéty D. Periodontal status of mandibular incisors after pronounced orthodontic advancement during adolescence: A follow-up evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119:2–10. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.111403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Little RM, Riedel RA, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93:423–8. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90102-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:614–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hägg U, Taranger J. Skeletal stages of the hand and wrist as indicators of the pubertal growth spurt. Acta Odontol Scand. 1980;38:187–200. doi: 10.3109/00016358009004719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Shroff B, Siegel-Sadewitz VL, VanArendonk AM, Wheeler TT. Postretention changes in arch width: A long-term comparison of 2 retention protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:491–8. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002283.pub4. CD002283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Huang GJ, Justus R, Kennedy DB, Kokich VG. Stability of deep-bite correction: A systematic review. J World Fed Orthod. 2013;2:e159–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2012.09.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zasciurinskiene E, Vasiliauskas A, Sidlauskas A, Svalkauskiene V, Zasciurinskas K. Comparison of different orthodontic retention methods after non-extraction orthodontic treatment: A long-term follow-up randomized controlled trial. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019;55:441. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lee RS, Mills CM, Willmot D, Boyd D. Orthodontic retention patterns in Hawke's Bay: A private practice survey. N Z Dent J. 2018;114:67–72. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lim J, Jeong J, Kim J, Heo G, Lee JH, Lee JH. Evaluation of relapse tendency after orthodontic treatment in nongrowing patients with different degrees of anterior crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144:801–8. [Google Scholar]