Clinical and radiographic comparison of the effects of two types of fixed retainers on periodontium - a randomized clinical trial

Sepideh Torkan, Morteza Oshagh, Leila Khojastepour, Shoaleh Shahidi, Somayeh Heidari, Sepideh Torkan, Morteza Oshagh, Leila Khojastepour, Shoaleh Shahidi, Somayeh Heidari

Abstract

Background: Most orthodontists believe that fixed retainers are necessary to maintain ideal dental relationships. However, untoward side effects might result from their long-term placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic effect of two commonly used fixed retainers on the health of the periodontium.

Methods: Thirty patients were randomly divided into two groups to receive either a fiber-reinforced composite retainer or a spiral wire retainer extended on the lingual surfaces of both maxillary and mandibular arches from canine to canine. Periapical radiographs were obtained from the patients at the time of placement of the retainers and after the 6-month period to assess the radiographic conditions of the periodontium. Clinical examination was carried out at the same two time intervals.

Results: Even though there were no significant differences between the two groups of study at the beginning of the trial, there were statistically significant differences after the 6-month follow-up regarding the main outcomes of the study. Nearly all indices showed to deteriorate after 6 months in the fiber-reinforced group, while in the spiral wire group, this was not the case. As for the secondary outcomes, radiographic examination did not reveal any statistically significant differences after 6 months or between the two groups.

Conclusions: It can be concluded that spiral wire retainers elicit less detrimental periodontal response in the short-term follow-up compared to fiber-reinforced composite retainers as revealed by the primary outcomes of the study.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01314729.

References

    1. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1972;62(3):296–309. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90268-0.
    1. Edwards JG. A long-term prospective evaluation of the circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy in alleviating orthodontic relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93(5):380–7. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90096-0.
    1. Boese LR. Fiberotomy and reproximation without lower retention 9 years in retrospect: part II. Angle Orthod. 1980;50(3):169–78.
    1. Boese LR. Fiberotomy and reproximation without lower retention, nine years in retrospect: part I. Angle Orthod. 1980;50(2):88–97.
    1. Blake M, Bibby K. Retention and stability: a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114(3):299–306. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70212-4.
    1. Little RM, Wallen TR, Riedel RA. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment-first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod. 1981;80(4):349–65. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(81)90171-8.
    1. Ormiston JP, Huang GJ, Little RM, Decker JD, Seuk GD. Retrospective analysis of long-term stable and unstable orthodontic treatment outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(5):568–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.07.047.
    1. de la Cruz A, Sampson P, Little RM, Artun J, Shapiro PA. Long-term changes in arch form after orthodontic treatment and retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107(5):518–30. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70119-2.
    1. Zachrisson BU. Important aspects of long-term stability. J Clin Orthod. 1997;31(9):562–83.
    1. Liu Y, Xu TM, Lin JX. Stability of teeth alignment after orthodontic treatment. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2003;38(5):381–3.
    1. Little RM. Stability and relapse of dental arch alignment. Br J Orthod. 1990;17(3):235–41.
    1. Shah AA. Postretention changes in mandibular crowding: a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(3):298–308. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00447-5.
    1. Booth FA, Edelman JM, Proffit WR. Twenty-year follow-up of patients with permanently bonded mandibular canine-to-canine retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(1):70–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.023.
    1. Knierim RW. Invisible lower cuspid to cuspid retainer. Angle Orthod. 1973;43(2):218–20.
    1. Pandis N, Vlahopoulos K, Madianos P, Eliades T. Long-term periodontal status of patients with mandibular lingual fixed retention. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(5):471–6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm042.
    1. Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod. 1977;71(4):440–8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90247-0.
    1. Zachrisson BU. The bonded lingual retainer and multiple spacing of anterior teeth. Swed Dent J Suppl. 1982;15:247–55.
    1. Amundsen OC, Wisth PJ. Clinical pearl: LingLock–the flossable fixed retainer. J Orthod. 2005;32(4):241–3. doi: 10.1179/146531205225021195.
    1. Rose E, Frucht S, Jonas IE. Clinical comparison of a multistranded wire and a direct-bonded polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite used for lingual retention. Quintessence Int. 2002;33(8):579–83.
    1. Iniguez I, Strassler HE. Polyethylene ribbon and fixed orthodontic retention and porcelain veneers: solving an esthetic dilemma. J Esthet Dent. 1998;10(2):52–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1998.tb00338.x.
    1. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108(2):207–13. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70085-4.
    1. Diamond M. Resin fiberglass bonded retainer. J Clin Orthod. 1987;21(3):182–3.
    1. Orchin JD. Permanent lingual bonded retainer. J Clin Orthod. 1990;24(4):229–31.
    1. Artun J. Caries and periodontal reactions associated with long-term use of different types of bonded lingual retainers. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(2):112–8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90302-6.
    1. Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod. 1982;81(2):93–8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90032-X.
    1. Gher ME. Changing concepts. The effects of occlusion on periodontitis. Dent Clin North Am. 1998;42(2):285–99.
    1. Baruch H, Ehrlich J, Yaffe A. [Splinting–a review of the literature] Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim. 2001;18(1):29–40.
    1. Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19(5):501–9. doi: 10.1093/ejo/19.5.501.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT group CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332.
    1. Loe H. The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontol. 1967;38(6):610–6. doi: 10.1902/jop.1967.38.6.610.
    1. Ramfjord SP. Indices for prevalence and incidence of periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 1959;30:51–9.
    1. Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The oral hygiene index: a method for classifying oral hygiene status. J Am Dent Assoc. 1960;61:29–35.
    1. Gibbs CH, Hirschfeld JW, Lee JG, Low SB, Magnusson I, Thousand RR, Yerneni P, Clark WB. Description and clinical evaluation of a new computerized periodontal probe–the Florida probe. J Clin Periodontol. 1988;15(2):137–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1988.tb01008.x.
    1. Lang NP, Adler R, Joss A, Nyman S. Absence of bleeding on probing. An indicator of periodontal stability. J Clin Periodontol. 1990;17(10):714–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1990.tb01059.x.
    1. Karayiannis A, Lang NP, Joss A, Nyman S. Bleeding on probing as it relates to probing pressure and gingival health in patients with a reduced but healthy periodontium. A clinical study. J Clin Periodontol. 1992;19(7):471–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1992.tb01159.x.
    1. Lang NP, Nyman S, Senn C, Joss A. Bleeding on probing as it relates to probing pressure and gingival health. J Clin Periodontol. 1991;18(4):257–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1991.tb00424.x.
    1. Thilander B, Rygh P, Ritan K. Tissue reaction in orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KW, editors. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. 4. St. Louis: Mosby; 2005. pp. 156–8.
    1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Retention. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4. St. Louis: Mosby Co; 2007. pp. 617–9.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Zachrisson BU, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1979;75(2):121–7. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181-7.
    1. Heier EE, De Smit AA, Wijgaerts IA, Adriaens PA. Periodontal implications of bonded versus removable retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(6):607–16. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70225-7.
    1. Kargul B, Caglar E, Kabalay U. Glass fiber-reinforced composite resin as fixed space maintainers in children: 12-month clinical follow-up. J Dent Child (Chic) 2005;72(3):109–12.
    1. Proffit WR, Ackerman JL. In: Orthodontic Diagnosis: the Development of a Problem List. 2. Proffit WR, Fields HW, editors. St Louis: Mosby; 1993.
    1. Newman MQ, Takei H, Carranza FA, Kolokkevold PR. Radiographic aids in the diagnosis of periodontal disease. In: Cochrane DL, Giannobile WV, Kennedy DB, editors. Clinical Periodontology. 10. St. Louis: W.B. Saunders; 2006. pp. 565–8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren