A Systematic Review of Efficiency of Retention and Periodontal Effects of the Lingual Bonded Retainers

Jump To References Section

Authors

  • Suchita Tarvade (Daokar)
     Professor and Guide, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, C.S.M.S.S. Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad − 431001, Maharashtra ,IN
  • Mitali Brijmohan Sharma
     PG Resident, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, C.S.M.S.S. Dental College and Hospital, Aurangabad − 431001, Maharashtra ,IN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18311/jpfa/2021/26767

Keywords:

Lingual Bonded Retainer, Lower Incisor Stability, Periodontal Effects

Abstract

Introduction: The fixed lingual bonded retainers have gained preference over removable retainers because they are more aesthetic, comfortable, convenient and free of patient compliance, but their periodontal effects, the incidences of breakages and failure to maintain incisor alignment are the some concerns. Therefore, this study aims to systematically evaluate the efficiency of retention and periodontal effects of lingual bonded retainers in orthodontically treated patients. Materials and Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed and Google Scholar were systematically searched. All human, original research studies in English evaluating the fixed lingual bonded retainers, in orthodontically treated patients, in single group or in comparison with different fixed lingual bonded retainers, with or without control were included. All articles were subjected to assessment of risk of bias. Results: A total of 17 studies were selected meeting the inclusion criteria. These were divided into two Group 1 - addressing the periodontal status; Group 2 - addressing the lower incisor stability. The 7 selected studies for group 1, reported that periodontal effects like gingival inflammation, plaque and calculus accumulation are associated with all kinds of lingual bonded retainers, but more in multistranded retainer. The lower incisor stability and alignment during retention phase was shown to be very efficient with multistranded retainers compared to others, in the 14 selected studies for group 2. From the 17 selected studies, 8 studies had a high risk of bias, 5 studies had a medium of bias and 4 studies had a low risk of bias. Conclusion: Even though newer types of retainers are being introduced to improve the survival rate, the multistranded retainers still prove to be a good choice with respect to maintenance of incisor alignment.

Downloads

Published

2021-10-14

How to Cite

(Daokar), S. T., & Sharma, M. B. (2021). A Systematic Review of Efficiency of Retention and Periodontal Effects of the Lingual Bonded Retainers. Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section), 35(2), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.18311/jpfa/2021/26767

Issue

Volume 35, Issue 2, June 2021 (Special Issue Orthodontics)

Section

Systematic Review

License

All the articles published in JPFA are distributed under a creative commons license. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright of their work (all usages allowed except for commercial purpose).

 

References

Knierim RW. Invisible lower cuspid to cuspid retainer. Angle Orthod. 1973; 43(2):218-219.

Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 1977; 71(4):440-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/00029416(77)90247-0.

í…rtun J, Zachrisson B. Improving the handling properties of a composite resin for direct bonding. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 1982; 81(4):269-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90212-3.

Zachrisson BJ. Third-generation mandibular bonded lingual 3-3 retainer. J. Clin. Orthod. 1995; 29(1):39-48.

Kartal Y, Kaya B. Fixed orthodontic retainers: A review. Turk J. Orthod. 2019; 32(2):110. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18080. PMid:31294414 PMCid:PMC6605884.

Al-Nimri K, Al Habashneh R, Obeidat M. Gingival health and relapse tendency: A prospective study of two types of lower fixed retainers. Aust. Orthod. J. 2009; 25(2):142.

Ferreira LA, Sapata DM, Provenzano MG, Hayacibara RM, Ramos AL. Periodontal parameters of two types of 3í—3 orthodontic retainer: A longitudinal study. Dental Press J. Orthod. 2019; 24(3):64-70. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.3.064-070.oar. PMid:31390451 PMCid:PMC6677337.

Maddalone M, Rota E, Mirabelli L, Venino PM, Porcaro G. Clinical evaluation of bond failures and survival of mandibular canine-to-canine bonded retainers during a 12-year time span. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2017; 10(4):330. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1460. PMid:29403224 PMCid:PMC5789134.

Lie Sam Foek DJ, í–zcan M, Verkerke GJ, Sandham A, Dijkstra PU. Survival of flexible, braided, bonded stainless steel lingual retainers: A historic cohort study. Eur. J. Orthod. 2008; 30(2):199-204. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/ cjm117. PMid:18222927.

Tacken MP, Cosyn J, De Wilde P, Aerts J, Govaerts E, Vannet BV. Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: A 2 year prospective multicentre study. Eur. J. Orthod. 2010; 32(2):117-123. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp100. PMid:19837746.

Lee KD, Mills CM. Bond failure rates for V-loop vs straight wire lingual retainers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(4):502-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.037. PMid:19361737.

Bolla E, Cozzani M, Doldo T, Fontana M. Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: A comparison between Glass Fiber-Reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int. Orthod. 2012; 10(1):16-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2011.12.005. PMid:22240271.

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):471-476. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm042. PMid:17974536.

Kocher KE, Gebistorf MC, Pandis N, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. Survival of maxillary and mandibular bonded retainers 10 to 15 years after orthodontic treatment: A retrospective observational study. Prog. Orthod. 2019; 20(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0279-8. PMid:31328248 PMCid:PMC6643008.

Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139(5):614-621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.041. PMid:21536204.

Salehi P, Najafi HZ, Roeinpeikar SM. Comparison of survival time between two types of orthodontic fixed retainer: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Prog. Orthod. 2013; 14(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-25. PMid:24326013 PMCid:PMC4384958.

Schütz-Fransson U, Lindsten R, Bjerklin K, Bondemark L. Twelve-year follow-up of mandibular incisor stability: Comparison between two bonded lingual orthodontic retainers. Angle Orthod. 2017; 87(2):200-208. https://doi.org/10.2319/031716-227.1. PMid:27552722.

Schütz-Fransson U, Lindsten R, Bjerklin K, Bondemark L. Mandibular incisor alignment in untreated subjects compared with long-term changes after orthodontic treatment with or without retainers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 155(2):234-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.03.025. PMid:30712695.

Liou EJ, Chen LI, Huang CS. Nickel-titanium mandibular bonded lingual 3-3 retainer: For permanent retention and solving relapse of mandibular anterior crowding. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119(4):443-449. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.111397. PMid:11298318.

Arash V, Teimoorian M, Jalali YF, Sheikhzadeh S. Clinical comparison between multi stranded wires and single strand ribbon wires used for lingual fixed retainers. Prog. Orthod. 2020; 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-020-00315-7. PMid:32596755 PMCid:PMC7321843.

Störmann I, Ehmer U. A prospective randomized study of different retainer types. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2002; 63(1):42-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-002-0040-6. PMid:11974451.

Sachdeva RC. Sure Smile technology in a patient-centered orthodontic practice. J. Clin. Orthod. 2001; 35(4):245-253.

Kravitz ND, Grauer D, Schumacher P, Jo YM. Memotain: A CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151(4):812-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.11.021.PMid:28364905.

Ehsani S, Nebbe B, Normando D, Lagravere MO, FloresMir C. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Orthod. 2014; 37(2):170-176. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju030. PMid:25052373.

Juloski J, Glisic B, Vandevska-Radunovic V. Long-term influence of fixed lingual retainers on the development of gingival recession: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Angle Orthod. 2017; 87(5):658-664. https://doi.org/10.2319/012217-58.1. PMid:28686089 PMCid: PMC8357211.

Sadowsky C, Schneider BJ, BeGole EA, Tahir E. Long-term stability after orthodontic treatment: Nonextraction with prolonged retention. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 1994; 106(3):243-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70043-5.