Search

Background: There is a shortage of evidence on the best type of retainer., Objectives: Evaluate upper and lower bonded retainers (BRs) versus upper and lower vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) over 12 months, in terms of stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction., Trial Design: Two-arm parallel group multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial., Methods: Sixty consecutive patients completing fixed appliance therapy and requiring retainers were recruited from 3 hospital departments. They were randomly allocated to either upper and lower labial segment BRs (n = 30) or upper and lower full-arch VFRs (n = 30). Primary outcome was stability. Secondary outcomes were retainer survival and patient satisfaction. A random sequence of treatment allocation was computer-generated and implemented by sealing in sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes independently prepared in advance. Patients, operators and outcome could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention., Results: Thirty patients received BRs (median [Mdn] age 16 years, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 2) and 30 received VFRs (Mdn age 17 years, IQR = 4). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At 12 months, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences in post-treatment change of maxillary labial segment alignment (BR = 1.1 mm, IQR = 1.56, VFR = 0.76 mm, IQR = 1.55, P = 0.61); however, there was greater post-treatment change in the mandibular VFR group (BR = 0.77 mm, IQR = 1.46, VFR = 1.69mm, IQR = 2.00, P = 0.008). The difference in maxillary retainer survival rates were statistically non-significant, P = 0.34 (BR = 63.6%, 239.3 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 73.3%, 311.1 days, 95% CI = 278.3-344.29). The mandibular BR had a lower survival rate (P = 0.01) at 12 months (BR = 50%, 239.3 days 95% CI = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 80%, 324.9 days 95% CI = 295.4-354.4). More subjects with VFRs reported discomfort (P = 0.002) and speech difficulties (P = 0.004) but found them easier to clean than those with BRs (P = 0.001)., Limitations: Results are after 1 year and we do not know how much the removable retainers were worn., Conclusions: After 1 year, there is no evidence of a significant difference in stability or retainer survival in the maxilla. In the mandible, BRs are more effective at maintaining mandibular labial segment alignment, but have a higher failure rate. In comparison with patients wearing VFRs, patients wearing BRs reported that they caused less interference with speech, required less compliance to wear them, and were more comfortable to wear than VFRs. Patients found the BRs harder to keep clean., Trial Registration: The trail was not registered.

Background: Retainer have the potential to compromise periodontal health., Objectives: Evaluate the periodontal health implications of upper and lower bonded retainers (BRs) versus upper and lower vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) over 12 months., Trial Design: Two-arm parallel group multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial., Methods: Sixty consecutive patients completing upper and lower fixed appliance therapy and requiring retainers were recruited from three hospital orthodontic departments. They were randomly allocated to either upper and lower labial segment BRs (n = 30) or upper and lower full-arch VFRs (n = 30). Periodontal health was assessed using the plaque and gingival indices of Silness and Loe, and the calculus index of Greene and Vermillion. Data were collected at debond and placement of the retainers (T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3). A random sequence of treatment allocation was computer-generated and implemented by sealing in sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes independently prepared in advance. Patients, operators, and outcome could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention., Results: Thirty patients received BRs (median age 16 years, interquartile range [IQR] = 2, 50% female, 50% male) and 30 received VFRs (median age 17 years, IQR = 4, 60% female, 40% male). Gingival inflammation decreased from baseline for both types of retainer. There was significantly less plaque and calculus accumulation and better gingival health with VFRs than BRs over the evaluated 12 months. No serious harm was observed., Limitations: It is not known how much the patients chose to wear their removable retainers. The results reported are after 1 year only., Conclusions: After 1 year, BRs were associated with greater accumulation of plaque and calculus than VFRs and minimally worse gingival inflammation than VFRs, but this did not appear to produce any clinically significant, adverse periodontal health problems., Trial Registration: This trial was not registered., Funding: There was no funding.

Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) relate to discomfort of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The disorder is multifactorial with a degree of psychogenic influence varying throughout an individual's life with phases of symptoms affecting the quality of life. In an attempt to treat this complex group of disorders many treatment modalities have been identified some of which are also considered in other Cochrane reviews. The disorder also has a normal cycle of events appearing to spontaneously improve without treatment., Objectives: To establish the effectiveness of orthodontic intervention in reducing symptoms in patients with TMD (compared with any control group receiving no treatment, placebo treatment or reassurance) and to establish if active orthodontic intervention leads to TMD., Search Strategy: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching of orthodontic journals and other related journals was undertaken in keeping with the Cochrane Collaboration handsearching programme. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of any studies were identified, as were experts offering legal advice, and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: 13th April 2010., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including quasi-randomised trials assessing orthodontic treatment for TMD were included. Studies with adults aged equal to or above 18 years old with clinically diagnosed TMD were included. There were no age restrictions for prevention trials provided the follow-up period extended into adulthood. The inclusion criteria required reports to state their diagnostic criteria for TMD at the start of treatment and for participants to exhibit two or more of the signs and/or symptoms. The treatment group included treatment with appliances that could induce stable orthodontic tooth movement. Patients receiving splints for 8 to 12 weeks and studies involving surgical intervention (direct exploration/surgery of the joint and/or orthognathic surgery to correct an abnormality of the underlying skeletal pattern) were excluded. The outcomes were: how well were the symptoms reduced, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life., Data Collection and Analysis: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in triplicate and independently by three review authors. As no two studies compared the same treatment strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies., Main Results: The searches identified 284 records from all databases. Initial screening of the abstracts and titles by all review authors identified 55 articles which related to orthodontic treatment and TMD. The full articles were then retrieved and of these articles only four demonstrated any data that might be of value with respect to TMD and orthodontics. After further analysis of the full texts of the four studies identified, none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria and all were excluded from this review., Authors' Conclusions: There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on the relationship of active orthodontic intervention and TMD. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this area of orthodontic practice.When considering consent for patients it is essential to reflect the seemingly random development/alleviation of TMD signs and symptoms.