Post-treatment stability after 5 years of retention with vacuum-formed and bonded retainers-a randomized controlled trial.
Journal
European journal of orthodontics
ISSN: 1460-2210
Titre abrégé: Eur J Orthod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7909010
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 02 2023
10 02 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
16
8
2022
medline:
14
2
2023
entrez:
15
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Retention after orthodontic treatment is still a challenge and more evidence about post-treatment stability and patients' perceptions of different retention strategies is needed. This trial compares removable vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) with bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers (CTC) after 5 years of retention. A single centre two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. This trial included 104 adolescent patients, randomized into two groups (computer-generated), using sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes. All patients were treated with fixed appliances in both jaws with and without tooth extractions. Patients in the intervention group received a VFR in the mandible (n = 52), and patients in the active comparator group received a CTC (n = 52). Both groups had a VFR in the maxilla. Dental casts at debond (T1), after 6 months (T2), after 18 months (T3), and after 5 years (T4) were digitized and analysed regarding Little's Irregularity Index (LII), overbite, overjet, arch length, and intercanine and intermolar width. The patients completed questionnaires at T1, T2, T3, and T4. Post-treatment changes between T1 and T4 in both jaws were overall small. In the maxilla, LII increased significantly (median difference: 0.3 mm), equally in both groups. In the mandible, LII increased significantly in the group VFR/VFR (median difference: 0.6 mm) compared to group VFR/CTC (median difference: 0.1 mm). In both groups, overjet was stable, overbite increased, and arch lengths decreased continuously. Intercanine widths and intermolar width in the mandible remained stable, but intermolar width in the maxilla decreased significantly. No differences were found between groups. Regardless of retention strategy, patients were very satisfied with the treatment outcome and their retention appliances after 5 years. It was not possible to perform blinded assessments of digital models at follow-up. Post-treatment changes in both jaws were small. Anterior alignment in the mandible was more stable with a bonded CTC retainer compared to a removable VFR after 5 years of retention. Patients were equally satisfied with fixed and removable retention appliances. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03070444).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Retention after orthodontic treatment is still a challenge and more evidence about post-treatment stability and patients' perceptions of different retention strategies is needed.
OBJECTIVES
This trial compares removable vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) with bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers (CTC) after 5 years of retention.
TRIAL DESIGN
A single centre two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial.
METHODS
This trial included 104 adolescent patients, randomized into two groups (computer-generated), using sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes. All patients were treated with fixed appliances in both jaws with and without tooth extractions. Patients in the intervention group received a VFR in the mandible (n = 52), and patients in the active comparator group received a CTC (n = 52). Both groups had a VFR in the maxilla. Dental casts at debond (T1), after 6 months (T2), after 18 months (T3), and after 5 years (T4) were digitized and analysed regarding Little's Irregularity Index (LII), overbite, overjet, arch length, and intercanine and intermolar width. The patients completed questionnaires at T1, T2, T3, and T4.
RESULTS
Post-treatment changes between T1 and T4 in both jaws were overall small. In the maxilla, LII increased significantly (median difference: 0.3 mm), equally in both groups. In the mandible, LII increased significantly in the group VFR/VFR (median difference: 0.6 mm) compared to group VFR/CTC (median difference: 0.1 mm). In both groups, overjet was stable, overbite increased, and arch lengths decreased continuously. Intercanine widths and intermolar width in the mandible remained stable, but intermolar width in the maxilla decreased significantly. No differences were found between groups. Regardless of retention strategy, patients were very satisfied with the treatment outcome and their retention appliances after 5 years.
LIMITATIONS
It was not possible to perform blinded assessments of digital models at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Post-treatment changes in both jaws were small. Anterior alignment in the mandible was more stable with a bonded CTC retainer compared to a removable VFR after 5 years of retention. Patients were equally satisfied with fixed and removable retention appliances.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03070444).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35968668
pii: 6667520
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjac043
pmc: PMC9912701
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03070444']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
68-78Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society.
Références
Aust Orthod J. 2011 May;27(1):52-6
pubmed: 21696115
Am J Orthod. 1975 Nov;68(5):554-63
pubmed: 1059332
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Mar;115(3):300-4
pubmed: 10066979
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Apr 3;43(2):152-158
pubmed: 33351886
Eur J Orthod. 2018 Jul 27;40(4):387-398
pubmed: 29059289
Am J Orthod. 1983 Feb;83(2):114-23
pubmed: 6572039
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Feb;149(2):161-70
pubmed: 26827972
Br J Orthod. 1990 Aug;17(3):235-41
pubmed: 2207055
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jun;151(6):1027-1033
pubmed: 28554448
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Apr 3;43(2):136-143
pubmed: 32613244
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Aug;154(2):167-174.e1
pubmed: 30075919
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2014 Nov 01;15(6):681-7
pubmed: 25825090
Eur J Orthod. 2015 Aug;37(4):345-53
pubmed: 25452629
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Nov 3;42(5):551-558
pubmed: 31665279
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Sep;150(3):406-15
pubmed: 27585768
Eur J Orthod. 2022 Mar 30;44(2):187-196
pubmed: 34719722
Br J Orthod. 1994 May;21(2):175-84
pubmed: 8043566
Eur J Orthod. 2007 Aug;29(4):372-8
pubmed: 17702797
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Aug;134(2):179e1-8
pubmed: 18675196
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Feb;155(2):234-242
pubmed: 30712695
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Oct;154(4):487-494
pubmed: 30268259
Angle Orthod. 2007 Mar;77(2):311-7
pubmed: 17319767