title: Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of retention, there is a tendency for teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse, almost every person who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the effects of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 26 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 26 January 2016). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help identify any unpublished trials.
  
  
  METHODS
  RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. The outcomes of interest were: how well the teeth were stabilised, failure of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses when studies with similar methodology reported the same outcome. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index to measure relapse.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We included 15 studies (1722 participants) in the review. There are also four ongoing studies and four studies await classification. The 15 included studies evaluated four comparisons: removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies); different types of fixed retainers (four studies); different types of removable retainers (eight studies); and one study compared a combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four studies had an unclear risk of bias and seven studies had a high risk of bias. Removable versus fixed retainers Thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03). This was based on one trial with 84 participants that was at high risk of bias; it was low quality evidence. Results on retainer failure were inconsistent. There was evidence of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; one trial, 84 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence), but participants found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60). Fixed versus fixed retainersThe studies did not report stability, adverse effects or participant satisfaction. It was possible to pool the data on retention failure from three trials that compared polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer in the lower arch with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57; moderate heterogeneity; three trials, 228 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in failure rates. It was also possible to pool the data from two trials that compared the same types of upper fixed retainers, with a similar finding: RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.78; low heterogeneity; two trials, 174 participants, low quality evidence). Removable versus removable retainersOne study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainer showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (full-time) (both low quality evidence).In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers. Other retainer comparisonsAnother study with a low risk of bias looked at three different approaches to retention for people with crowding, but normal jaw relationships. The study found that there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers full-time provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants.Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed.
authors.affiliation: Orthodontic Department, St Luke's Hospital, Little Horton Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK, BD5 0NA.
authors.forename: Simon J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Littlewood
authors.forename: Declan T
authors.initials: DT
authors.lastname: Millett
authors.forename: Bridget
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Doubleday
authors.forename: David R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Bearn
authors.forename: Helen V
authors.initials: HV
authors.lastname: Worthington
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D006801:Humans; D018704:Orthodontic Retainers; D009971:Orthodontics, Corrective / Q000379:methods*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014085:Tooth Migration / Q000517:prevention & control
references.citation: Aust Orthod J. 2011 May;27(1):52-6
references.pmid: 21696115
references.citation: J Clin Orthod. 1998 Feb;32(2):95-7
references.pmid: 9709631
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2005 Jun;27(3):209-14
references.pmid: 15947218
references.citation: J Orofac Orthop. 2002 Jan;63(1):42-50
references.pmid: 11974451
references.citation: Am J Orthod. 1970 Jan;57(1):35-46
references.pmid: 5262003
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD002283
references.pmid: 16437443
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2010 Apr;32(2):117-23
references.pmid: 19837746
references.citation: Int Orthod. 2012 Mar;10(1):16-28
references.pmid: 22240271
references.citation: Angle Orthod. 2010 Sep;80(5):853-60
references.pmid: 20578855
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 1992 Apr;14(2):125-39
references.pmid: 1582457
references.citation: Orthod Craniofac Res. 2013 May;16(2):105-15
references.pmid: 23324112
references.citation: Evid Based Dent. 2015 Sep;16(3):69-71
references.pmid: 26492797
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2012 Aug;34(4):475-9
references.pmid: 21508267
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jun;135(6):729-36
references.pmid: 19524832
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Mar;131(3):357-62
references.pmid: 17346591
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 May;93(5):380-7
references.pmid: 3163217
references.citation: Orthodontics (Chic.). 2013;14(1):e198-208
references.pmid: 23646330
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 May;113(5):507-14
references.pmid: 9598608
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Aug;144(2):169-75
references.pmid: 23910197
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 May;93(5):423-8
references.pmid: 3163221
references.citation: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Feb;26(1):87-93
references.pmid: 16515100
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2008 Dec;30(6):606-13
references.pmid: 19054814
references.citation: Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):954-9
references.pmid: 18004927
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2015 Aug;37(4):345-53
references.pmid: 25452629
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2010 Apr;32(2):165-70
references.pmid: 19797411
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2010 Feb;32(1):1-5
references.pmid: 19828592
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Jun;145(6):720-7
references.pmid: 24880842
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):730-7
references.pmid: 18068589
references.citation: J Clin Periodontol. 1987 Feb;14(2):89-94
references.pmid: 3469225
references.citation: Angle Orthod. 2012 Jan;82(1):84-7
references.pmid: 21721947
references.citation: Angle Orthod. 1997;67(3):223-30
references.pmid: 9188967
references.citation: Prog Orthod. 2013 Sep 11;14:25
references.pmid: 24326013
references.citation: Br J Orthod. 1983 Jan;10(1):50-2
references.pmid: 6573201
references.citation: J Dent Res. 2011 Oct;90(10):1197-201
references.pmid: 21771797
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 Dec;118(6):617-23
references.pmid: 11113795
references.citation: Am J Orthod. 1981 Jul;80(1):83-91
references.pmid: 6942658
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2007 Oct;29(5):471-6
references.pmid: 17974536
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD002283
references.pmid: 14973985
references.citation: Quintessence Int. 2002 Sep;33(8):579-83
references.pmid: 12238688
references.citation: J Clin Orthod. 1992 Aug;26(8):480-90
references.pmid: 1452734
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 Jul;102(1):22-8
references.pmid: 1626529
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2007 Aug;29(4):372-8
references.pmid: 17702797
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 2010 Oct;32(5):542-7
references.pmid: 20080961
references.citation: Am J Orthod. 1981 Oct;80(4):349-65
references.pmid: 6945805
references.citation: Aust Orthod J. 2009 Nov;25(2):142-6
references.pmid: 20043549
references.citation: Eur J Orthod. 1997 Oct;19(5):501-9
references.pmid: 9386336
references.citation: Angle Orthod. 2011 May;81(3):404-9
references.pmid: 21261482
references.citation: World J Orthod. 2007 Fall;8(3):300-6
references.pmid: 17902334