Comparative assessment of relapse and failure between CAD/CAM stainless steel and standard stainless steel fixed retainers in orthodontic retention patients:

Abstract

Objectives To compare relapse and failure rates of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and standard fixed retainers. Materials and Methods This single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial included 46 patients who completed active orthodontic treatment and complied with retention visits. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 16), Lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 16), and control group with stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (traditional, n = 14). Intraoral scans were obtained at placement of fixed retainers (T1), 3-month visit (T2), and 6-month visit (T3) and measured for intercanine width and Little's Irregularity Index. Failures were recorded. Results The CAD/CAM group experienced less intercanine width decrease than the traditional group at 3 months (mean difference, 0.83 ± 0.16 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–1.22; P < .001) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.23 ± 0.40 mm; 95% CI, 0.19–2.27; P < .05). The CAD/CAM group experienced less increase in Little's Irregularity Index compared with the lab group within 3 months (mean difference, 0.81 ± 0.27 mm; 95% CI, 0.12–1.49; P < .05). Failures from greatest to least were experienced by the lab group (43.8%), the CAD/CAM group (25%), and the traditional group (14.3%). Conclusions Within 6 months of bonding fixed retainers, CAD/CAM fixed retainers showed less relapse than lab-based and traditional chairside retainers and less failures than lab-based retainers.

Efficacy of CAD/CAM Technology in Interventions Implemented in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trials

“…Reading the full text resulted in the exclusion of 5 additional trials. Finally, 8 CTs [ 5 , 11 – 17 ] were included in this scoping review ( Figure 1 ).…”

“…The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1 . Three CTs were randomized single-blind, controlled, and with parallel design [ 11 , 12 , 17 ]. Three CTs were randomized unblinded, controlled, and with parallel design [ 14 – 16 ], one CT was randomized unblinded, controlled, and with split-mouth design [ 13 ], and one CT was quasi-randomized, controlled, with parallel design [ 5 ].…”

“…Three CTs were randomized unblinded, controlled, and with parallel design [ 14 – 16 ], one CT was randomized unblinded, controlled, and with split-mouth design [ 13 ], and one CT was quasi-randomized, controlled, with parallel design [ 5 ]. One CT compared 4 groups [ 14 ], 2 CTs compared 3 groups [ 11 , 12 ], and 5 CTs compared 2 groups [ 5 , 13 , 15 – 17 ]. These CTs were published between 2017 and 2022.…”

“…Four studies compared the computer-aided indirect bonding method versus the traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets [ 5 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]. Three studies compared CAD/CAM retainers with other types of retainers [ 12 , 14 , 17 ], and one CT compared CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires versus stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires group (traditional group) and Lab group with multistranded stainless steel wires [ 11 ].…”

“…Regarding bonding fixed retainers, CAD/CAM fixed retainers revealed inferior relapse than lab-based and conventional chairside retainers. The CAD/CAM retainers also showed fewer failures than lab-based retainers [ 11 ].…”