Objective: To evaluate the stability after orthodontic treatment between two types of lower fixed retainers: those bonded onto all anterior teeth or those bonded only onto the canines. Materials and Methods: The following electronic databases were consulted: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials, and Google Scholar. No restriction of language or year were applied. After selection of studies, risk-of-bias evaluation and qualitative synthesis of the included studies were performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized studies and the “Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions” (ROBINS-I) tool for nonrandomized studies, and a summary of the overall strength of evidence was presented using the “Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation” tool. Results: Among the 180 studies retrieved from the searches, five were included in this review. Three of them showed a low risk of bias, while two presented a high risk of bias. With regard to stability, two studies reported better stability for retainers bonded to all six teeth, while the other three showed no difference. The retainer bonded to all teeth presented a higher breakage rate in one study. Conclusions: Stability seems better with lower fixed retainers bonded on all anterior teeth. The breakage rate may not change according to the bonding. However, studies with greater methodological soundness are necessary to reach a more reliable conclusion.

Dental anomalies were present in over half of the sample, and most of them were related to the shape of the teeth. Although there was a high prevalence of shape-related DAs, these alterations are generally of lower severity, and most do not require specific treatment. However, in 19.25% of cases, DAs were found involving the number, size and structure of the teeth. These DAs should be diagnosed and treated early, avoiding thus more serious complications.

Introduction: The use of lingual spurs has been described as one efficient option, with great stability of results, but with scarce information of toleration for use in the mixed and permanent dentition phases. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of lingual spurs on the oral health-related quality of life of children and/or adolescents during anterior open bite treatment. Methods: The review was recorded in the PROSPERO database. Eight electronic databases and partial gray literature were searched, without restrictions until march 2022. A manual search was also performed in the references of the included articles. Studies assessing the impact of lingual spurs on the oral health-related quality of life were included. Risk of bias was assessed using JBI or ROBINS-I tool, according to the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through GRADE. Results: Five studies met the eligibility criteria. Two non-randomized clinical trials had a serious risk of bias. Of the case-series studies, two had a low risk of bias and the other, a moderate risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was classified as very low for all the evaluated results. In general, the studies reported an initial negative impact with the use of lingual spurs, however this was transitory in nature. A quantitative analysis was not performed due to the great heterogeneity between the studies. Conclusion: Current evidence, although limited, suggests that lingual spurs have an initial transient negative impact during interceptive treatment. Additional well-conducted randomized clinical trials are needed.