Anna Iliadi1, Dimitrios Kloukos2, Nikolaos Gkantidis3, Christos Katsaros4, Nikolaos Pandis5. 1. Department of Orthodontics, University of Athens, 2 Thivon Str, 11527 Athens, Greece. Electronic address: annaeliades@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: dimitrios.kloukos@zmk.unibe.ch. 3. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: nikosgant@yahoo.gr. 4. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: christos.katsaros@zmk.unibe.ch. 5. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: npandis@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of failure of fixed orthodontic retention protocols. DATA: Screening for inclusion eligibility, quality assessment of studies and data extraction was performed independently by two authors. SOURCES: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched with no restrictions on publication date or language using detailed strategies. The main outcome assessed was bond failure. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-seven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Randomised controlled trials and prospective studies were evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Retrospective studies were graded employing the predetermined criteria of Bondemark. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials, four of which were of low quality, were identified. Six studies had a prospective design and all were of low quality. Twelve studies were retrospective. The quality of trial reporting was poor in general. Four studies assessing glass-fibre retainers, three RCTs and one prospective, reported bond failures from 11 to 71%, whereas twenty studies evaluating multistranded retainers – nine RCTs, two prospective and nine retrospective – reported failures ranging from 12 to 50%. One comparison was performed, multistranded wires vs. polyehtylene woven ribbon (RR: 1.74; 95% CI: 0.45, 6.73; p=0.42). CONCLUSION: The quality of the available evidence is low. No conclusive evidence was found in order to guide orthodontists in the selection of the best protocol. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although fixed orthodontic retainers have been used for years in clinical practice, the selection of the best treatment protocol still remains a subjective issue. The available studies, and their synthesis, cannot provide reliable evidence in this field.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of failure of fixed orthodontic retention protocols. DATA: Screening for inclusion eligibility, quality assessment of studies and data extraction was performed independently by two authors. SOURCES: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched with no restrictions on publication date or language using detailed strategies. The main outcome assessed was bond failure. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-seven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Randomised controlled trials and prospective studies were evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Retrospective studies were graded employing the predetermined criteria of Bondemark. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials, four of which were of low quality, were identified. Six studies had a prospective design and all were of low quality. Twelve studies were retrospective. The quality of trial reporting was poor in general. Four studies assessing glass-fibre retainers, three RCTs and one prospective, reported bond failures from 11 to 71%, whereas twenty studies evaluating multistranded retainers – nine RCTs, two prospective and nine retrospective – reported failures ranging from 12 to 50%. One comparison was performed, multistranded wires vs. polyehtylene woven ribbon (RR: 1.74; 95% CI: 0.45, 6.73; p=0.42). CONCLUSION: The quality of the available evidence is low. No conclusive evidence was found in order to guide orthodontists in the selection of the best protocol. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although fixed orthodontic retainers have been used for years in clinical practice, the selection of the best treatment protocol still remains a subjective issue. The available studies, and their synthesis, cannot provide reliable evidence in this field.
Authors: Cleo Wouters; Toon A Lamberts; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Anne Marie Renkema Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Ilan Beitlitum; Vered Barzilay; Fatma Rayyan; Alon Sebaoun; Rachel Sarig Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Maciej Jedliński; Marta Mazur; Krzysztof Schmeidl; Katarzyna Grocholewicz; Roman Ardan; Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 3.623