Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review
- 460 Downloads
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clinical trials comparing VFR wearing protocols and searched databases, without restrictions, for published and unpublished literature.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.
KeywordsSystematic review Orthodontics Retainers Thermoplastic Clear Vacuum-formed
Compliances with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Johnston C, Burden D, Morris D. Clinical guidelines: orthodontic retention (Revised by Parvizi F, Morris D, Atack N). London: British Orthodontic Society; 2013.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 21.Sawhney B. Orthodontic retainers: a survey of patient compliance and satisfaction. Dissertation. London: University of Western Ontario; 2013.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.Google Scholar
- 34.Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
- 37.American Dental Association. ADA clinical practice guideline handbook: 2013 Update. Chicago: American Dental Association; 2013.Google Scholar