Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Odontology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We aimed at comparing the performance of vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers (VFR) worn either full-time or part-time, in maintaining orthodontic treatment results in terms of tooth alignment, arch form and occlusion. We reviewed randomized and prospective controlled clinical trials comparing VFR wearing protocols and searched databases, without restrictions, for published and unpublished literature. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall level of certainty in the evidence following ADA methodology. 184 studies were initially identified and reduced to the 3 randomized controlled trials included in the systematic review by means of specific criteria. One study followed patients 1 year into retention, and the other two for 6 months. Little’s Irregularity Index, intermolar and intercanine width, arch length, overjet and PAR score did not differ significantly between the patients wearing their retainers part time or full time. We observed a slight increase in the overbite in the part-time group in only one trial. With a moderate level of certainty, we found that during the observation period, full-time VFR wear is not superior to part-time, bearing in mind the potential implications for health burden, retainer longevity and cost-effectiveness, as well as patient satisfaction and compliance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnston C, Burden D, Morris D. Clinical guidelines: orthodontic retention (Revised by Parvizi F, Morris D, Atack N). London: British Orthodontic Society; 2013.

  2. Joondeph DR. Stability, retention and relapse. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL (eds) Orthodontics. Current principles and techniques, 5th edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2011.

  3. Blake M, Garvey MT. Rationale for retention following orthodontic treatment. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998;64:640–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod. 1975;68:554–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blake M, Bibby K. Retention and stability: a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;114:299–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Melrose C, Millett DT. Toward a perspective on orthodontic retention? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;113:507–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ingervall B. Cheek pressure and head posture. Angle Orthod. 1988;58:47–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sinclair PM, Little RM. Maturation of untreated normal occlusions. Am J Orthod. 1983;83:114–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heier EE, De Smit AA, Wijgaerts IA, Adriaens PA. Periodontal implications of bonded versus removable retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1997;112:607–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ackerman MB, Thornton B. Posttreatment compliance with removable maxillary retention in a teenage population: a short-term randomized clinical trial. Orthod (Chic.). 2011;12:22–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sheridan JJ. The three keys of retention. J Clin Orthod. 1991;25:717–8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Meade MJ, Millett D. Retention protocols and use of vacuum-formed retainers among specialist orthodontists. J Orthod. 2013;40:318–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vandevska-Radunovic V, Espeland L, Stenvik A. Retention: type, duration and need for common guidelines. A survey of Norwegian orthodontists. Orthodontics (Chic.). 2013;14:e110–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pratt MC, Kluemper GT, Hartsfield JK Jr, Fardo D, Nash DA. Evaluation of retention protocols among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140:520–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Valiathan M, Hughes E. Results of a survey-based study to identify common retention practices in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137:170–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Renkema AM, Sips ET, Bronkhorst E, Kuijpers- Jagtman AM. A survey on orthodontic retention procedures in the Netherlands. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:423–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Singh P, Grammati S, Kirschen R. Orthodontic retention patterns in the United Kingdom. J Orthod. 2009;36:115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wong PM, Freer TJ. A comprehensive survey of retention procedures in Australia and New Zealand. Aust Orthod J. 2004;20:99–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A, Hollinghurst S, Ewings P, Clark S, Ireland A, Sandy J. Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:372–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wong P, Freer TJ. Patients’ attitudes towards compliance with retainer wear. Aust Orthod J. 2005;21:45–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sawhney B. Orthodontic retainers: a survey of patient compliance and satisfaction. Dissertation. London: University of Western Ontario; 2013.

  22. Mollov ND, Lindauer SJ, Best AM, Shroff B, Tufekci E. Patient attitudes toward retention and perceptions of treatment success. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:468–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lindauer SJ, Shoff RC. Comparison of Essix and Hawley retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1998;32:95–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Haydar B, Karabulut G, Ozkan S, Aksoy AU, Ciger S. Effects of retainers on the articulation of speech. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1996;110:535–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sun J, Yu YC, Liu MY, Chen L, Li HW, Zhang L, Zhou Y, Ao D, Tao R, Lai WL. Survival time comparison between Hawley and clear overlay retainers: a randomized trial. J Dent Res. 2011;90:1197–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Reitan K. Clinical and histological observations on tooth movement during and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1967;53:721–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Reitan K. Principles of retention and avoidance of posttreatment relapse. Am J Orthod. 1969;55:776–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A, Hills D, Killingback N, Ewings P, Clark S, Ireland AJ, Sandy JR. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132:730–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang F. A new thermoplastic retainer. J Clin Orthod. 1997;31:754–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lai CS, Grossen JM, Renkema AM, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. Orthodontic retention procedures in Switzerland. Swiss Dent J. 2014;124:655–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Clark JD, Kerr WJ, Davis MH. CASES—clinical audit; scenarios for evaluation and study. Br Dent J. 1997;183:108–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sheridan JJ, Armbruster P, Moskowitz E, Nguyen P. Avoiding demineralization and bite alteration from full-coverage plastic appliances. J Clin Orthod. 2001;35:444–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2001;3:123–130.

  34. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

  35. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 1992;14:125–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod. 1992;14:180–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. American Dental Association. ADA clinical practice guideline handbook: 2013 Update. Chicago: American Dental Association; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gill DS, Naini FB, Jones A, Tredwin CJ. Part-time versus full-time retainer wear following fixed appliance therapy: a randomized prospective controlled trial. World J Orthod. 2007;8:300–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thickett E, Power S. A randomized clinical trial of thermoplastic retainer wear. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32:1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jäderberg S, Feldmann I, Engström C. Removable thermoplastic appliances as orthodontic retainers—a prospective study of different wear regimens. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:475–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gøtzsche PC, Lang T, CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aslan BI, Dinçer M, Salmanli O, Qasem MA. Comparison of the effects of modified and full-coverage thermoplastic retainers on occlusal contacts. Orthodontics (Chic.). 2013;14:e198–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dinçer M, Meral O, Tümer N. The investigation of occlusal contacts during the retention period. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:640–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Little RM, Robert M. Little on the University of Washington post-retention studies. J Clin Orthod. 2009;43:723–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mortensen MG, Kiyak HA, Omnell L. Patient and parent understanding of informed consent in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;124:541–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sergl HG, Klages U, Zentner A. Functional and social discomfort during orthodontic treatment—effects on compliance and prediction of patients’ adaptation by personality variables. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:307–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bartsch A, Witt E, Sahm G, Schneider S. Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1993;104:378–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lee SJ, Ahn SJ, Kim TW. Patient compliance and locus of control in orthodontic treatment: a prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133:354–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bos A, Kleverlaan CJ, Hoogstraten J, Prahl-Andersen B, Kuitert R. Comparing subjective and objective measures of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132:801–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Brandao M, Pinho HS, Urias D. Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;129:239–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kyriacou PA, Jones DP. Compliance monitor for use with removable orthodontic headgear appliances. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1997;35:57–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Cureton SL, Regennitter F, Orbell MG. An accurate, inexpensive headgear timer. J Clin Orthod. 1991;25:749–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E. Micro-electronic monitoring of functional appliance wear. Eur J Orthod. 1990;12:297–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ackerman MB, McRae MS, Longley WH. Microsensor technology to help monitor removable appliance wear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;135:549–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schäfer K, Ludwig B, Meyer-Gutknecht H, Schott TC. Quantifying patient adherence during active orthodontic treatment with removable appliances using microelectronic wear-time documentation. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37:73–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Schott TC, Göz G. Applicative characteristics of new microelectronic sensors Smart Retainer® and TheraMon® for measuring wear time. J Orofac Orthop. 2010;71:339–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Schott TC, Ludwig B, Glasl BA, Lisson JA. A microsensor for monitoring removable appliance wear. J Clin Orthod. 2011;45:518–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Schott TC, Ludwig B. Microelectronic wear-time documentation of removable orthodontic devices detects heterogeneous wear behavior and individualizes treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014;146:155–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleftherios G. Kaklamanos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Search in Medline through PubMed, 31.08.2014.

#1

Orthodontic retention

1285

#2

(Orthodontic retention) AND removable[Title/Abstract]

112

#3

(Orthodontic retention) AND essix[Title/Abstract]

11

#4

(Orthodontic retention) AND Vacuum[Title/Abstract]

13

#5

(Orthodontic retention) AND transparent[Title/Abstract]

3

#6

(Orthodontic retention) AND splint[Title/Abstract]

35

#7

(Orthodontic retention) AND thermoplastic[Title/Abstract]

10

#8

Orthodontic retainer

1036

#9

(Orthodontic retainer) AND essix[Title/Abstract]

25

#10

(Orthodontic retainer) AND removable[Title/Abstract]

113

#11

(Orthodontic retainer) AND transparent[Title/Abstract]

3

#12

(Orthodontic retainer) AND vacuum[Title/Abstract]

22

#13

(Orthodontic retainer) AND splint[Title/Abstract]

45

#14

(Orthodontic retainer) AND thermoplastic[Title/Abstract]

20

#15

Orthodontic retention[MeSH Major Topic] Schema: all

0

#16

Orthodontic retainer[MeSH Terms]

766

#17

Orthodontic retainer[MeSH Terms]) AND Essix[Title/Abstract]

21

#18

(Orthodontic retainer[MeSH Terms]) AND splint[Title/Abstract]

30

#19

(Orthodontic retainer[MeSH Terms]) AND removable[Title/Abstract]

67

#20

(Orthodontic retainer[MeSH Terms]) AND transparent[Title/Abstract]

2

#21

(Orthodontic retainer[MeSH Terms]) AND Vacuum[Title/Abstract]

15

#22

Orthodontic retainer[MeSH Terms]) AND thermoplastic[Title/Abstract]

17

#23

((Orthodont*[Title/Abstract]) AND (Retention OR retainer[Title/Abstract]))

749

NOT (Bonded OR fixed[Title/Abstract])

#24

((((Orthodont*[Title/Abstract]) AND (Retention OR retainer[Title/Abstract]))

8

NOT (Bonded OR fixed[Title/Abstract]))) AND Essix[Title/Abstract]

#25

((((Orthodont*[Title/Abstract]) AND (Retention OR retainer[Title/Abstract]))

7

NOT (Bonded OR fixed[Title/Abstract]))) AND Vacuum[Title/Abstract]

#26

((((Orthodont*[Title/Abstract]) AND (Retention OR retainer[Title/Abstract]))

1

NOT (Bonded OR fixed[Title/Abstract]))) AND Transparent[Title/Abstract]

#27

((((Orthodont*[Title/Abstract]) AND (Retention OR retainer[Title/Abstract]))

42

NOT (Bonded OR fixed[Title/Abstract]))) AND removable[Title/Abstract]

#28

(((Orthodont*[Title/Abstract]) AND (Retention OR retainer[Title/Abstract]))

18

NOT (Bonded OR fixed[Title/Abstract]))) AND splint[Title/Abstract]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaklamanos, E.G., Kourakou, M., Kloukos, D. et al. Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review. Odontology 105, 237–247 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0254-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0254-5

Keywords

Navigation