Orthodontic Retainers—A Critical Review

Abstract

The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may vary in duration. This review aims to present and comment on the available means of retention. The ever-popular, passive Hawley-like removable appliances are credible in maintaining the desired occlusion. Modifications are the removable appliance Wrap Around, having the labial archwire extending to the premolars; the translucent retainer, Astics, a unique aesthetic Hawley-type device; and the reinforced removable retainer, which features a metallic grid reinforcing the acrylic base. Vacuum-formed retainers are easy to fabricate and are readily prescribed. By contrast, fixed retainers are made of orthodontic wire and composite resin bonded on the lingual or palatal surfaces of the anterior teeth. Patient-related variables need evaluation to select the appropriate retainer, while patients ought to realize the importance of retention and comply with offered guidance. Overall, the orthodontist is responsible for keeping the patient informed on the properties and the duration of retention, even before starting active orthodontic treatment.

“Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg’s retainer”: a pilot study

“…Whereas, in case of VFRs it is not improving over the observation period of 12 months. This is in agreement with previous literature by Sauget et al (1997) [ 19 ] showing minimal improvement of teeth by R 1 retainers in vertical direction during retention phase. Recent studies by author like Dincer and Isik Aslan (2010) [ 22 ], Hoybjerg et al (2013) [ 20 ] too showed minimal improvement in vertical direction.…”

“…HRs allows more vertical settling of posterior teeth than VFRs according to previous literature [ 19 , 20 ]. It has a demerit of wire component crossing occlusally, which has issue especially in extraction cases.…”

“…Results of statistical analysis was significant, suggesting R 1 retainers being aesthetically more acceptable by patients than R 2 retainers (Table 3 ). The rationale behind this is transparent plastic sheet and lighter weight appliance [ 19 , 29 ]. However, Begg’s appliance was moderately accepted by patients and quite aesthetic as well.…”

Direct 3D-Printed Orthodontic Retainers. A Systematic Review

“…Although efforts have been made through the years for the standardization of the retention protocol, this is impracticable. Every patient needs tailormade approaches according to their age, pre-treatment characteristics, periodontal and dental situation, compromises during treatment, compliance, etc., [ 12 , 74 , 75 , 76 ]. Knaup et al suggested the application of both removable and fixed appliances to enhance anterior teeth alignment stability over time [ 77 ].…”

A Meta-Review about Medical 3D Printing

“…On-body devices refer to applications that are in direct contact with the skin, such as prostheses. They include the following medical fields dentistry [18, 115–117], health care engineering [26, 27], general surgery [24, 25], oncology [42], oral and maxillofacial surgery [48, 50, 118], orthopedics [63, 74, 119–125], otorhinolaryngology [78, 83], pediatrics [89], plastic surgery [93] and radiation oncology [44]. The organs or organ systems in this section include the cranium [44, 48, 78], musculoskeletal system [24, 44, 63, 74, 93, 119–125], rectum [42], teeth [18, 115–117] and trachea [124].…”