Related Experiment Videos
A prospective randomized study of different retainer types.
1Department of Orthodontics, University of Münster, Germany. ilka.stoermann@t-online.de
Summary
Fixed lingual retainers are crucial for preventing orthodontic relapse. Canine-to-canine retainers offer better stability and patient comfort compared to canine-and-canine types, despite minor differences in detachment rates.
Area of Science:
- Orthodontics
- Dental Materials Science
Background:
- Fixed lingual retainers are increasingly important for preventing orthodontic relapse.
- This study evaluates different fixed retainer types for lower anterior segment stabilization.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare fixed lingual retainers based on detachment rate, relapse, periodontal health, oral hygiene, and patient comfort.
- To assess the influence of bonding conditions and composite materials on retainer performance.
Main Methods:
- Prospective, randomized study involving 103 patients.
- Compared two customized canine-to-canine retainers (0.0215" and 0.0195" wires) and one prefabricated canine-and-canine retainer.
- Investigated dry field vs. relatively dry field bonding and two composite materials (Heliosit, Concise).
Main Results:
- Canine-and-canine retainers had an 18% detachment rate; 0.0195" canine-to-canine had 29%; 0.0215" canine-to-canine had 53%.
- Heliosit composite showed a significantly higher detachment rate (73%) than Concise (27%).
- Canine-to-canine retainers maintained good tooth stability, while canine-and-canine retainers led to incisor relapse; canine-and-canine also caused greater patient discomfort.
Conclusions:
- Customized canine-to-canine fixed lingual retainers demonstrate superior stability and patient comfort for lower anterior segment retention.
- Prefabricated canine-and-canine retainers are associated with higher relapse rates and patient discomfort.
- Bonding conditions and composite material significantly impact retainer success, with Concise composite performing better.