OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability after orthodontic treatment between two types of lower fixed retainers: those bonded onto all anterior teeth or those bonded only onto the canines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following electronic databases were consulted: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials, and Google Scholar. No restriction of language or year were applied. After selection of studies, risk-of-bias evaluation and qualitative synthesis of the included studies were performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized studies and the "Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions" (ROBINS-I) tool for nonrandomized studies, and a summary of the overall strength of evidence was presented using the "Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation" tool. RESULTS: Among the 180 studies retrieved from the searches, five were included in this review. Three of them showed a low risk of bias, while two presented a high risk of bias. With regard to stability, two studies reported better stability for retainers bonded to all six teeth, while the other three showed no difference. The retainer bonded to all teeth presented a higher breakage rate in one study. CONCLUSIONS: Stability seems better with lower fixed retainers bonded on all anterior teeth. The breakage rate may not change according to the bonding. However, studies with greater methodological soundness are necessary to reach a more reliable conclusion.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability after orthodontic treatment between two types of lower fixed retainers: those bonded onto all anterior teeth or those bonded only onto the canines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following electronic databases were consulted: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials, and Google Scholar. No restriction of language or year were applied. After selection of studies, risk-of-bias evaluation and qualitative synthesis of the included studies were performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized studies and the "Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions" (ROBINS-I) tool for nonrandomized studies, and a summary of the overall strength of evidence was presented using the "Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation" tool. RESULTS: Among the 180 studies retrieved from the searches, five were included in this review. Three of them showed a low risk of bias, while two presented a high risk of bias. With regard to stability, two studies reported better stability for retainers bonded to all six teeth, while the other three showed no difference. The retainer bonded to all teeth presented a higher breakage rate in one study. CONCLUSIONS: Stability seems better with lower fixed retainers bonded on all anterior teeth. The breakage rate may not change according to the bonding. However, studies with greater methodological soundness are necessary to reach a more reliable conclusion.
Authors: Michael Wolf; U Schulte; K Küpper; C Bourauel; L Keilig; S N Papageorgiou; C Dirk; C Kirschneck; N Daratsianos; A Jäger Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 1.938