Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 22, 2025
Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
A comparison of CAD/CAM-based fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a
Erfan Bardideh1, Mahsa Ghorbani2, Hooman Shafaee1
1Dental Research Center, Orthodontics Department, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Objective:
Comparing computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed retainers and conventional fixed retainers for their effectiveness in orthodontic patients using systematic review and meta-analysis of literature.
Search Methods:
A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane's CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Ovid, and LILACS up to May 2023, with no language or date restrictions.
Selection Criteria:
Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that complied with PICO questions were included, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Data Collection And Analysis:
Using custom-piloted forms, relevant data were retrieved from the included studies. Then a random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis was used to pool the results. Primary outcomes were stability of treatment results measured through dental cast measurements and periodontal status, while secondary outcomes were failure rates and patient-reported outcomes.
Results:
Seven RCTs with 601 participants were included in the review. In the short term (≤6 months), the meta-analysis showed no significant differences in inter-canine distance or arch length between CAD/CAM and conventional fixed retainers in mandibular retainers. However, for Little's irregularity index, single-stranded stainless-steel retainers were notably worse than Ni-Ti CAD/CAM retainers at 3 and 6 months, while multi-stranded stainless-steel retainers only diverged from CAD/CAM at the 6-month milestone, despite the overall clinical inconsequence of these changes. CAD/CAM retainers were associated with a lower plaque index than traditional retainers but no significant difference in gingival index. Failure rates did not differ significantly between CAD/CAM and other types of retainers in mandibular retainers. Nonetheless, one study had a high amount of CAD/CAM retainer failures leading to the study being stopped.
Conclusions:
In the short term, CAD/CAM fixed retainers show promise as an alternative to traditional retainers. They may enhance periodontal health, as indicated by lower plaque index scores than conventional retainers. However, extensive research is needed to determine the long-term durability and effectiveness of CAD/CAM retainers in orthodontic treatment, particularly regarding their failure rate. Until comprehensive evidence is available, the use of CAD/CAM retainers should be tailored for each case.
Registration:
The protocol for this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO with the ID CRD42023412741.
