Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Al Moghrabi Retainers
Al Moghrabi Retainers
Introduction: Our objectives were to compare the stability of treatment and periodontal health with fixed vs
removable orthodontic retainers over a 4-year period. Methods: A 4-year follow-up of participants randomly
assigned to either mandibular fixed retainers from canine to canine or removable vacuum-formed retainers
was undertaken. Irregularity of the mandibular anterior segment, mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths,
arch length, and extraction space opening were recorded. Gingival inflammation, calculus and plaque levels,
clinical attachment level, and bleeding on probing were assessed. The outcome assessor was blinded when
possible. Results: Forty-two participants were included in the analysis, 21 per group. Some relapse occurred
in both treatment groups at the 4-year follow-up; however, after adjusting for confounders, the median
between-groups difference was 1.64 mm higher in participants wearing vacuum-formed retainers (P 5 0.02;
95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30, 2.98 mm). No statistical difference was found between the treatment
groups in terms of intercanine (P 5 0.52; 95% CI, 1.07, 0.55) and intermolar (P 5 0.55; 95% CI, 1.72, 0.93)
widths, arch length (P 5 0.99; 95% CI, 1.15, 1.14), and extraction space opening (P 5 0.84; 95% CI, 1.54,
1.86). There was also no statistical difference in relation to periodontal outcomes between the treatment
groups, with significant gingival inflammation and plaque levels common findings. Conclusions: This prolonged
study is the first to suggest that fixed retention offers the potential benefit of improved preservation of alignment of
the mandibular labial segment in the long term. However, both types of retainers were associated with gingival
inflammation and elevated plaque scores. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:167-74)
P
rolonged and indeed indefinite retention is this, there is a lack of high-quality evidence concerning
routinely prescribed following orthodontic treat- the relative effectiveness of fixed and removable vari-
ment to mitigate against posttreatment change ants.3 Moreover, the long-term impact of fixed or
related to unstable positioning of teeth, physiological removable retention on the periodontium has been the
recovery and age-related changes1,2 Notwithstanding subject of little prospective analysis and compliance
a
levels with prolonged removable retention is unclear4
Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University
of London, London, United Kingdom; College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah bint Relatively few randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. have involved comparisons of the effectiveness of fixed
and vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs).5,6 Neither of
b
Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University
of London, London, United Kingdom.
c
Department of Orthodontics, Eastman Dental Institute, University College these studies involved follow-ups in excess of 2 years.
London, London, United Kingdom. Thus, they reported little difference in terms of stability,
d
Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Medical Faculty, University of Bern, with mean mandibular anterior irregularity scores less
Bern, Switzerland; private practice, Corfu, Greece.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Po- than 2.0 mm in both trials, indicating acceptable levels
tential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported. of stability in the short term. It is intuitive to expect
Address correspondence to: Padhraig S. Fleming, Centre for Oral Growth & that irregularity would increase over time, with impor-
Development, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen
Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, United Kingdom; e-mail, tant differences between these interventions conceivably
padhraig.fleming@gmail.com. only emerging over a more prolonged period. In partic-
Submitted, October 2017; revised and accepted, January 2018. ular, compliance with removable retainer wear may
0889-5406/$36.00
Ó 2018 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved. wane, leading to the development of posttreatment
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.01.007 changes primarily due to unchecked maturational
167
168 Al-Moghrabi et al
changes in the medium term. Failure of fixed retainers An information sheet was given to patients willing to
may also promote deterioration of the posttreatment participate at a minimum of a 48-month follow-up after
outcome.4 Notwithstanding this, in view of the dearth removal of active appliances, and oral and written con-
of prolonged, prospective evaluation, the relative impact sent was obtained. They were advised not to visit their
of these eventualities can only be speculated. dentist for scaling for 1 month before their appointment,
In terms of periodontal health, fixed retainers may and those taking medications known to have an effect
hinder scrupulous oral hygiene measures; however, it is on gingival health were excluded from the periodontal
not known whether this necessarily leads to worsening assessment.
of periodontal outcomes, particularly in the long Orthodontic stability was based chiefly on the irregu-
term.7 A number of observational studies have involved larity of the mandibular incisors using Little's irregularity
assessment of periodontal integrity during the retention index11 to assign a cumulative score for the contact point
phase.7-10 The retrospective nature of these studies risks displacement in the mandibular intercanine region. Al-
selection bias, and those with poorer hygiene may not be lied measurements including intercanine and intermolar
considered suitable for fixed retainers. Consequently, widths, arch length, and extraction space opening were
prospective analysis with random allocation to retainer also recorded.6 Five clinical measures of periodontal
types is preferable. It is important, therefore, to health were scored: gingival inflammation,12 calculus
undertake a more holistic assessment of benefits and and plaque levels,13,14 clinical attachment level, and
harms with prolonged use of orthodontic retainers. bleeding on probing (Appendix).
An impression of the mandibular arch was taken for
Aims all participants using hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane (Vir-
tual; Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lichtenstein). The impres-
The primary aim of this study was to compare the sta-
sion was then cast in hard (type III gypsum) stone.
bility of orthodontic outcomes with fixed and removable
Orthodontic stability was measured from the study
retainers over a period of at least 4 years. The secondary
models, adopting the same technique used in the previ-
aim was to investigate periodontal outcomes with fixed
ous study.6 The lingual surfaces of the mandibular labial
vs removable retainers over this period.
segment were obscured on the study models using pros-
thetic dental wax (Ribbon Wax; Metrodent, Huddersfield,
MATERIAL AND METHODS United Kingdom) to ensure assessor blindness. Measure-
Follow-up was undertaken in an RCT conducted at the ments were performed by 1 researcher (D.A.-M.) using a
Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, digital caliper (150 mm DIN 862, ABSOLUTE Digimatic
which had involved assessment of stability at up to caliper, model 500-191U; Mitutoyo, Andover, Hamp-
18 months posttreatment.6 Ethical approval was obtained shire, United Kingdom) with a resolution of 60.01 mm.
(10/H0713/57, Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee), Periodontal measurements were recorded for the labial
and all participants in the previous clinical trial were con- and lingual surfaces of the mandibular canines, and cen-
tacted for possible inclusion at least 48 months after with- tral and lateral incisors. Each tooth surface was divided
drawal of active appliances with an appointment arranged into thirds using vertical lines based on the morphology
at their convenience. In the previous RCT, 82 participants and position of the dental papilla to demarcate mesial,
were randomly allocated by computer-generated random middle, and distal surfaces. The periodontal measures
allocation with the allocations concealed from the treat- were scored clinically by the same researcher (Appendix).
ing clinician using an opaque, sealed-envelope system.6 All participants were asked about frequency, dura-
Participants received either a mandibular VFR (Essix tion, type of toothbrushing, and the time since the last
Ace Plastic, 120 mm in diameter; DENTSPLY, Islandia, visit to the dentist. Patients wearing mandibular VFRs
NY) or a fixed retainer (0.0175-in coaxial archwire; were also asked to complete a retainer wear chart. The
Ortho-Care, Shipley, United Kingdom) bonded with self-reported compliance levels were categorized as fol-
Transbond LR composite material (3M Unitek, London, lows: compliant, reported wear of retainers was as
United Kingdom). Those in the removable retainer group advised; partially compliant, retainer wear instructions
were instructed to wear the mandibular VFR on a full-time were not followed precisely; and noncompliant, not
basis for the first 6 months, nights only for the second wearing retainers.
6 months, and alternate nights from 12 to 18 months after The status of the fixed retainer and the history of
removal of active appliances. Thereafter, intermittent retainer repair and previous breakage were recorded in
nights-only wear (1 to 2 nights weekly) was recommen- the fixed retainer group.
ded. Of the 82 participants in the previous trial, data Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliabilities of clin-
were obtained from 48 at the 18-month follow-up.6 ical and study model measurements were tested by
August 2018 Vol 154 Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Al-Moghrabi et al 169
assessing agreement between repeated measurements.15 level of statistical significance was set at 0.05 with all an-
For stability outcomes, intraexaminer reliability was alyses undertaken using the Stata statistical software
determined on 10 randomly selected study models package (version 14.1; StataCorp, College Station, Tex).
4 weeks after the initial measurements. Interexaminer
reliability (D.A.-M., N.O.) was determined on 10 RESULTS
randomly selected study models. There was excellent Eighty-two participants were enrolled in the original
agreement for intraexaminer (0.97) and interexaminer RCT.6 Of these, 48 attended the 18-month follow-up. At
(0.92) reliabilities. Because the examiner (D.A.-M.) was the 4-year follow-up, 42 participants returned: 21 per
an orthodontist, familiarization with the measurement group (Fig). The groups were well matched in terms of
of periodontal outcomes was required and was facilitated age, sex, and treatment protocol; most were female,
by completion of an online course with oversight from a and 43% and 48% had extraction-based treatment in
specialist in periodontology (C.G.-M.) before recruit- the fixed and removable groups, respectively (Table I).
ment. Intraexaminer reliability for scoring the modified In terms of fixed retainer integrity, all (100%) were in
gingival index and plaque index was assessed by place at the recall, although 3 (14%) were partially de-
repeating the measurements on 10 intraoral photographs tached, and 2 (10%) had a history of repairs. In the
at a 4-week interval.12,14 Repeated measurements were removable retainer group, the reported noncompliance
performed on 10 healthy volunteers 30 minutes apart levels increased from 0% over the initial 6 months to
to assess the repeatability of measurements of calculus 19% at 6 to 12 months, 52% in the second year, and
scores and clinical attachment levels. Excellent 67% thereafter.
agreement was observed (0.94 to 0.97) for
interexaminer reliability. Orthodontic stability with fixed vs removable
retention
Sample size calculation
In terms of the irregularity of the mandibular anterior
The initial sample size was calculated based on previ- segment, data from 42 participants were analyzed
ous research,16 although a higher level of attrition was to (Table II). Some relapse occurred in both treatment
be expected after the more prolonged follow-up. A total groups at the 4-year follow-up, with median increases
of 72 participants (36 in each group) were required for in irregularity of 0.85 and 2.37 mm in the fixed and
power of 90% to detect a difference of 0.5 mm at the removable retainer groups, respectively. After adjusting
0.05 level of statistical significance. To compensate for for confounders, the median between-groups difference
a dropout rate of at least 15%, the final number enrolled was 1.64 mm higher in those wearing VFRs (P 5 0.02;
in the trial was 82 participants at the outset.6 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30, 2.98 mm). No statis-
tical difference was found between the treatment groups
Statistical analysis in terms of intercanine (P 5 0.52; 95% CI, 1.07, 0.55)
Since the data were not normally distributed, median and intermolar widths (P 5 0.55; 95% CI, 1.72, 0.93),
regression was used to compare the effectiveness of the arch length (P 5 0.99; 95% CI, 1.15, 1.14), and extrac-
2 types of retainers on orthodontic stability accounting tion space opening (P 5 0.84; 95% CI, 1.54, 1.86).
for baseline differences between the groups. Similarly,
the median differences between fixed and removable re- Periodontal outcomes
tainers in terms of gingival inflammation, calculus and For the modified gingival index, score 3 was the most
plaque levels, clinical attachment levels, and bleeding frequent in both fixed (55.4%) and removable (52.6%)
on probing were assessed using the Mann-Whitney retainer groups at the 4-year follow-up. For the plaque
U test. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare index, score 4 was the most frequently observed in
the median differences in periodontal outcomes be- both fixed (31.3%) and removable retainer groups
tween the fixed and removable groups on the labial (27.7%). When calculus was present, score 2 was the
and lingual surfaces independently. If significant differ- most common score in both groups (18.9% in fixed,
ences were identified in relation to gingival inflamma- 17.6% in removable). However, about two thirds of
tion, plaque, or calculus scores, probing depth, or tooth surfaces had no calculus in either group.
bleeding on probing, median regression analysis was No statistical difference in relation to periodontal pa-
used to assess the influence of age, sex, brushing fre- rameters was found between the fixed and removable
quency and duration, and type of retainer on the retainer groups (Table III). Median scores for the modi-
outcome. A similar model was used to evaluate the effect fied gingival index were slightly lower in the fixed
of retainer type on the clinical attachment level. The retainer group (P 5 0.76). However, median plaque
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2018 Vol 154 Issue 2
170 Al-Moghrabi et al
levels (P 5 0.27) and clinical attachment levels However, periodontal conditions could not be consid-
(P 5 0.23) were slightly higher in the fixed group, ered healthy in either group, with significant gingival
although this was not statistically significant. When inflammation and elevated plaque levels common find-
periodontal outcomes for the lingual surfaces of the ings; this highlights the premium on periodontal main-
mandibular anterior segment in the fixed and removable tenance after orthodontics.
groups were compared, no significant difference was Few previous RCTs have compared the effectiveness
found (P .0.05). Similar findings were found in relation of fixed retainers and VFRs.5,6,17 One of these involved
to the buccal surfaces. a comparison between lingual fixed retainers
combined with nights-only Hawley retainers and VFRs
DISCUSSION prescribed for full-time wear. Similar stability of the
Based on the findings of this 4-year follow-up study, mandibular anterior alignment was noted at the 1-year
fixed retainers appear to be more effective in preserving follow-up.5 However, this study risked attrition bias
mandibular anterior segment alignment compared to due to high levels of dropouts with a small sample
VFRs with approximately 1.6mm less irregularity devel- size. Similarly, in the earlier report of this study,
oping with fixed retention, although some deterioration O'Rourke et al6 alluded to a lack of significant
was observed in both groups. Since the subjects were between-group differences in relation to mandibular
randomly allocated to retainer type, irrespective of base- anterior segment stability after 18 months. A recently
line oral hygiene levels and previous periodontal condi- published RCT involving a comparison of fixed retainers
tions, it appears that fixed retention offers the potential and VFRs prescribed for nights-only wear also reported
benefit of improved preservation of alignment in the comparable levels of relapse in the maxillary arch with
long term without significantly increasing the risk of marginally greater change (Little's irregularity index,11
periodontal deterioration relative to removable retainers. 0.92 mm) in the mandibular arch at the 12-month
August 2018 Vol 154 Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Al-Moghrabi et al 171
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2018 Vol 154 Issue 2
172 Al-Moghrabi et al
August 2018 Vol 154 Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Al-Moghrabi et al 173
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2018 Vol 154 Issue 2
174 Al-Moghrabi et al
16. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A, Hills D, Killingback N, Ewings P, retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study. Eur J Orthod
et al. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a 2010;32:117-23.
single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofa- 22. Kearney MK, Pandis N, Fleming PS. Mixed-methods assessment of
cial Orthop 2007;132:730-7. perceptions of mandibular anterior malalignment and need for or-
17. Forde K, Storey M, Littlewood SJ, Scott P, Luther F, Kang J. Bonded thodontic retreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;
versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 150:592-600.
1: stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction outcomes after 23. Katsaros C, Livas C, Renkema AM. Unexpected complications of
12 months. Eur J Orthod October 20, 2017: [Epub ahead of print]. bonded mandibular lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or-
18. Al-Moghrabi D, Salazar FC, Pandis N, Fleming PS. Compliance thop 2007;132:838-41.
with removable orthodontic appliances and adjuncts: asystematic 24. Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term
review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual
152:17-32. retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:614-21.
19. Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Hartsfield JK Jr, Fardo D, Nash DA. Eval- 25. Heier EE, De Smit A, Wijgaerts IA, Adriaens PA. Periodontal impli-
uation of retention protocols among members of the American As- cations of bonded versus removable retainers. Am J Orthod Dento-
sociation of Orthodontists in the United States. Am J Orthod facial Orthop 1997;112:607-16.
Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:520-6. 26. Storey M, Forde K, Littlewood SJ, Scott P, Luther F, Kang J.
20. Little RM, Riedel RA, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandib- Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled
ular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J trial. Part 2: periodontal health outcomes after 12 months. Eur J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:423-8. Orthod October 20, 2017: [Epub ahead of print].
21. Tacken MP, Cosyn J, De Wilde P, Aerts J, Govaerts E, Vannet BV. 27. Innes N, Schwendicke F, Lamont T. How do we create, and
Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic improve, the evidence base? Br Dent J 2016;220:651-5.
August 2018 Vol 154 Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Al-Moghrabi et al 174.e1
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2018 Vol 154 Issue 2