Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers

A prospective short-term study

Vergleichende Evaluierung der parodontalen Effekte und Überlebensraten von Memotain und fünfsträngigen geklebten Retainern

Eine prospektive Kurzzeitstudie

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To prospectively compare the short-term periodontal effects and survival rates of mandibular lingual canine-to-canine Memotain (CA-Digital, Mettmann, Germany) and five-stranded bonded retainers.

Methods

In all, 52 patients requiring retention after orthodontic treatment were assigned to 2 study groups (n = 26 in each group). Retention was provided by Memotain retainers which were fabricated digitally using CAD-CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) technology in the first group and by five-stranded retainers which were fabricated manually using a conventional bending method in the second group. The patients were examined at the following time points: 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months. Plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per tooth, and survival rate of retainer wires were analyzed by Mann–Whitney U, Friedman, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and χ2 tests.

Results

The differences between the groups were nonsignificant for plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per tooth and survival rate of retainer wires. Significant differences were observed within the groups throughout the follow-up period for plaque index and probing depth. The survival rates of retainer wires were 77% for the Memotain retainers and 73% for the five-stranded retainers for the 6‑month follow-up period.

Conclusions

Periodontal outcomes and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded mandibular lingual bonded retainers were similar. Furthermore, periodontal health was maintained and considerably high survival rates were achieved with both retainer types.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Prospektiver Vergleich der kurzfristigen parodontalen Effekte und Überlebensraten von Memotain (CA-Digital, Mettmann, Deutschland) und fünfsträngigen geklebten Eckzahn-zu-Eckzahn-Retainern im Unterkiefer.

Methoden

Insgesamt wurden 52 Patienten, die nach kieferorthopädischer Behandlung eine Retention brauchten, in 2 Studiengruppen eingeteilt (n = 26). Die Retention erfolgte in der ersten Gruppe durch Memotain-Retainer, die digital mit CAD-CAM(„computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing“)-Technologie hergestellt wurden, in der zweiten Gruppe durch fünfsträngige Retainer, die manuell mit einer konventionellen Biegemethode hergestellt wurden. Die Patienten wurden zu den folgenden Zeitpunkten untersucht: 1 Woche, 1 Monat sowie 3 und 6 Monate. Plaqueindex, Gingivaindex, Sondierungstiefe, marginale Rezession, Blutung bei Sondierung, Ausfallrate pro Zahn und Überlebensrate der Retainerdrähte wurden analysiert (Mann-Whitney-U-, Friedman‑, Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank- und χ2-Test).

Ergebnisse

Die Intergruppen-Unterschiede waren für den Plaqueindex, den Gingivaindex, die Sondierungstiefe, die marginale Rezession, die Blutung bei Sondierung, die Ausfallrate pro Zahn und die Überlebensrate der Retainerdrähte nicht signifikant. Während der gesamten Nachbeobachtungszeit wurden innerhalb der Gruppen signifikante Unterschiede beim Plaqueindex und bei der Sondierungstiefe beobachtet. Während der 6‑monatigen Nachbeobachtungszeit betrugen die Überlebensraten 77% für die Memotain- und 73% für die fünfsträngigen Retainer.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die parodontalen Ergebnisse und die Überlebensraten für Memotain- und fünfsträngige lingual geklebte Retainer im Unterkiefer waren ähnlich. Darüber hinaus blieb die parodontale Gesundheit erhalten und es wurden mit beiden Retainer-Typen erheblich hohe Überlebensraten erzielt.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1 Abb. 1
Fig. 2 Abb. 2
Fig. 3 Abb. 3
Fig. 4 Abb. 4
Fig. 5 Abb. 5
Fig. 6 Abb. 6
Fig. 7 Abb. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Nimri K, Al Habashneh R, Obeidat M (2009) Gingival health and relapse tendency: a prospective study of two types of lower fixed retainers. Aust Orthod J 25:142–146

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrén A, Asplund J, Azarmidohkt E, Svensson R, Varde P, Mohlin B (1998) A clinical evaluation of long term retention with bonded retainers made from multi-strand wires. Swed Dent J 22:123–131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA (1997) A 3‑year follow-up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod 19:501–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bearn DR (1995) Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 108:207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Booth FA, Edelman JM, Proffit WR (2008) Twenty-year follow-up of patients with permanently bonded mandibular canine-to-canine retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:70–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA (2014) Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a single center randomized controlled trial comparing placement time and failure over a 6-month period. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 146:701–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU (1991) Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod 25:619–630

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Demling A, Demling C, Schwestka-Polly R, Stiesch M, Hewer W (2009) Influence of lingual orthodontic therapy on microbial parameters and periodontal status in adults. Eur J Orthod 31:638–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dietrich P, Patcas R, Pandis N, Eliades T (2015) Long-term follow-up of maxillary fixed retention: survival rate and periodontal health. Eur J Orthod 37:37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Venere D, Pettini F, Nardi GM, Laforgia A, Stefanachi G, Notaro V, Rapone B, Grassi FR, Corsalini M (2017) Correlation between parodontal indexes and orthodontic retainers: prospective study in a group of 16 patients. Oral Implantol 10:78–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Egli F, Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA (2017) Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 2‑year follow-up of a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151:15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Forde K, Storey M, Littlewood SJ, Scott P, Luther F, Kang J (2018) Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 1: stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction outcomes after 12 months. Eur J Orthod 40:387–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jin C, Bennani F, Gray A, Farella M, Mei L (2018) Survival analysis of orthodontic retainers. Eur J Orthod 40:531–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jongsma MA, van der Mei HC, Atema-Smit J, Busscher HJ, Ren Y (2015) In vivo biofilm formation on stainless steel bonded retainers during different oral health-care regimens. Int J Oral Sci 7:42–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Juloski J, Glisic B, Vandevska-Radunovic V (2017) Long-term influence of fixed lingual retainers on the development of gingival recession: a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Angle Orthod 87:658–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Knaup I, Wagner Y, Wego J, Fritz U, Jäger A, Wolf M (2019) Potential impact of lingual retainers on oral health: comparison between conventional twistflex retainers and CAD/CAM fabricated nitinol retainers: a clinical in vitro and in vivo investigation. J Orofac Orthop 80:88–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kravitz ND, Grauer D, Schumacher P, Jo YM (2017) Memotain: a CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151:812–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lie Sam Foek DJ, Ozcan M, Verkerke GJ, Sandham A, Dijkstra PU (2008) Survival of flexible, braided, bonded stainless steel lingual retainers: a historic cohort study. Eur J Orthod 30:199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lumsden KW, Saidler G, McColl JH (1999) Breakage incidence with direct bonded lingual retainers. Br J Orthod 26:191–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pandis N, Fleming PS, Kloukos D, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T (2013) Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or photo polymerization over a 2-year period: a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pandis N, Vlahopoulos K, Madianos P, Eliades T (2007) Long-term periodontal status of patients with mandibular lingual fixed retention. Eur J Orthod 29:471–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Segner D, Heinrici B (2000) Bonded retainers-clinical reliability. J Orofac Orthop 61:352–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Storey M, Forde K, Littlewood SJ, Scott P, Luther F, Kang J (2018) Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 2: periodontal health outcomes after 12 months. Eur J Orthod 40:399–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Störmann I, Ehmer U (2002) A prospective randomized study of different retainer types. J Orofac Orthop 63:42–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Taner T, Aksu M (2012) A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod 34:470–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tang AT, Forsberg CM, Andlin-Sobocki A, Ekstrand J, Hägg U (2013) Lingual retainers bonded without liquid resin: a 5-year follow-up study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 143:101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Westerlund A, Oikimoui C, Ransjö M, Ekestubbe A, Bresin A, Lund H (2017) Conebeam computed tomographic evaluation of the long-term effects of orthodontic retainers on marginal bone levels. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151:74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolf M, Schumacher P, Jäger F, Wego J, Fritz U, Korbmacher-Steiner H, Jäger A, Schauseil M (2015) Novel lingual retainer created using CAD/CAM technology: evaluation of its positioning accuracy. J Orofac Orthop 76:164–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zachrisson BU (2007) Long-term experience with direct-bonded retainers: update and clinical advice. J Clin Orthod 41:728–737

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zachrisson BU (2015) Multistranded wire bonded retainers: from start to success. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 148:724–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Baskent University Research Fund (project number: D‑KA17/09). The authors would also like to thank laboratory technician Ebru Güven for her contributions in this work.

Funding

This study was supported by Baskent University Research Fund (Project number D‑KA17/09).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, Antalya, Turkey

    Yasemin Kartal

  2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Burçak Kaya

  3. Private Practice, Ankara, Turkey

    Ömür Polat-Özsoy

  4. Dis Hekimligi Fakultesi, Ortodonti Anabilim Dali, Baskent Universitesi, 1. Cad No: 107, 06490, Bahcelievler-Ankara, Turkey

    Burçak Kaya

Authors
  1. Yasemin Kartal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Burçak Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ömür Polat-Özsoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burçak Kaya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Y. Kartal, B. Kaya and Ö. Polat-Özsoy declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Baskent University Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee, project number D‑KA17/09) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kartal, Y., Kaya, B. & Polat-Özsoy, Ö. Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers. J Orofac Orthop 82, 32–41 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00243-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00243-5

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation