OBJECTIVE: To identify which dental and/or cephalometric variables were predictors of postretention mandibular dental arch stability in patients who underwent treatment with transpalatal arch and lip bumper during mixed dentition followed by full fixed appliances in the permanent dentition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients were divided into stable and relapse groups based on the postretention presence or absence of relapse. Intercuspid, interpremolar, and intermolar widths; arch length and perimeter; crowding; and lower incisor proclination were evaluated before treatment (T0), after lip bumper treatment (T1), after fixed appliance treatment (T2), and a minimum of 3 years after removal of the full fixed appliance (T3). Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of changes between T0 and T1, as predictive variables, on the occurrence of relapse at T3. RESULTS: The model explained 53.5 % of the variance in treatment stability and correctly classified 80.6 % of the sample. Of the seven prediction variables, intermolar and interpremolar changes between T0 and T1 (P = .024 and P = .034, respectively) were statistically significant. For every millimeter of increase in intermolar and interpremolar widths there was a 1.52 and 2.70 times increase, respectively, in the odds of having stability. There was also weak evidence for the effect of sex (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: The best predictors of an average 4-year postretention mandibular dental arch stability after treatment with a lip bumper followed by full fixed appliances were intermolar and interpremolar width increases during lip bumper therapy. The amount of relapse in this crowding could be considered clinically irrelevant.
OBJECTIVE: To identify which dental and/or cephalometric variables were predictors of postretention mandibular dental arch stability in patients who underwent treatment with transpalatal arch and lip bumper during mixed dentition followed by full fixed appliances in the permanent dentition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients were divided into stable and relapse groups based on the postretention presence or absence of relapse. Intercuspid, interpremolar, and intermolar widths; arch length and perimeter; crowding; and lower incisor proclination were evaluated before treatment (T0), after lip bumper treatment (T1), after fixed appliance treatment (T2), and a minimum of 3 years after removal of the full fixed appliance (T3). Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of changes between T0 and T1, as predictive variables, on the occurrence of relapse at T3. RESULTS: The model explained 53.5 % of the variance in treatment stability and correctly classified 80.6 % of the sample. Of the seven prediction variables, intermolar and interpremolar changes between T0 and T1 (P = .024 and P = .034, respectively) were statistically significant. For every millimeter of increase in intermolar and interpremolar widths there was a 1.52 and 2.70 times increase, respectively, in the odds of having stability. There was also weak evidence for the effect of sex (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: The best predictors of an average 4-year postretention mandibular dental arch stability after treatment with a lip bumper followed by full fixed appliances were intermolar and interpremolar width increases during lip bumper therapy. The amount of relapse in this crowding could be considered clinically irrelevant.