The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: A randomized controlled trial

  • Gelin, Emilie (Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University Hospital of Liege) ;
  • Seidel, Laurence (Department of Biostatistics and Medico-economic Information, University Hospital of Liege, University of Liege) ;
  • Bruwier, Annick (Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University Hospital of Liege) ;
  • Albert, Adelin (Department of Biostatistics and Medico-economic Information, University Hospital of Liege, University of Liege) ;
  • Charavet, Carole (Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University Hospital of Liege)
  • Received : 2020.04.28
  • Accepted : 2020.06.26
  • Published : 2020.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized nitinol retainers with standard stainless-steel fixed retainers over a 12-month study period. Methods: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted on 62 patients randomly allocated to a control group that received stainless-steel retainers or a test group that received customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium retainers. Four time points were defined: retainer placement (T0) and 1-month (T1), 6-month (T2), and 12-month (T3) follow-up appointments. At each time point, Little's irregularity index (LII) (primary endpoint) and dental stability measurements such as intercanine width were recorded in addition to assessment of periodontal parameters. Radiological measurements such as the incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA) were recorded at T0 and T3. Failure events (wire integrity or debonding) were assessed at each time point. Results: From T0 to T3, LII and other dental measurements showed no significant differences between the two groups. The data for periodontal parameters remained stable over the study period, except for the gingival index, which was slightly, but significantly, higher in the test group at T3 (p = 0.039). The IMPA angle showed no intergroup difference. The two groups showed no significant difference in debonding events. Conclusions: This RCT conducted over a 12-month period demonstrated no significant difference between customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainers and standard stainless-steel lingual retainers in terms of dental anterior stability and retainer survival. Both retainers eventually appeared to be equally effective in maintaining periodontal health.

Keywords

References

  1. Sadowsky C, Sakols EI. Long-term assessment of orthodontic relapse. Am J Orthod 1982;82:456-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90312-8
  2. Yu Y, Sun J, Lai W, Wu T, Koshy S, Shi Z. Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(9):CD008734.
  3. Wolf M, Schumacher P, Jager F, Wego J, Fritz U, Korbmacher-Steiner H, et al. Novel lingual retainer created using CAD/CAM technology: evaluation of its positioning accuracy. J Orofac Orthop 2015;76:164-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-014-0279-8
  4. Kartal Y, Kaya B. Fixed orthodontic retainers: a review. Turk J Orthod 2019;32:110-4. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18080
  5. Kravitz ND, Shirck JM. Bonded lingual retainers [Internet]. Orthodontic Products; 2015 Nov [cited 2020 Jul]. Available from: http://www.kravitzorthodontics.com/assets/pdfs/bonded-lingualretainers.pdf.
  6. Kravitz ND, Grauer D, Schumacher P, Jo YM. Memotain: a CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:812-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.11.021
  7. Renkema AM, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Long-term effectiveness of canine-to-canine bonded flexible spiral wire lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:614-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.041
  8. Knaup I, Wagner Y, Wego J, Fritz U, Jager A, Wolf M. 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 2019;80:88-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00169-7
  9. Aycan M, Goymen M. Comparison of the different retention appliances produced using CAD/CAM and conventional methods and different surface roughening methods. Lasers Med Sci 2019;34:287-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-018-2585-7
  10. Schumacher P. CAD/CAM-fabricated lingual retainers made of nitinol. Dental Tribune [Internet]. 2015 Jun 11 [cited 2020 Jul 26]. Available from: https://www.dental-tribune.com/clinical/cadcam-fabricated-lingual-retainers-made-of-nitinol/
  11. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972;62:296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90268-0
  12. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90086-X
  13. Loe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I. Prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand 1963;21:533-51. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356309011240
  14. Silness J, Loe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condtion. Acta Odontol Scand 1964;22:121-35. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016356408993968
  15. Sullivan HC, Atkins JH. Freeutogenous gingival grafts. 1. Principles of successful grafting. Periodontics 1968;6:5-13.
  16. Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The oral hygiene index: a method for classifying oral hygiene status. J Am Dent Assoc 1960;61:172-9. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1960.0177
  17. Steinnes J, Johnsen G, Kerosuo H. Stability of orthodontic treatment outcome in relation to retention status: an 8-year follow-up. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:1027-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.10.032
  18. Egli F, Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis MA. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. follow-up A 2-year of a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.009
  19. Swidi AJ, Griffin ae, Buschang PH. Mandibular alignment changes after full-fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2019;41:609-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz004
  20. Gunay F, Oz AA. Clinical effectiveness of 2 orthodontic retainer wires on mandibular arch retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153:232-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.019
  21. Mohlhenrich SC, Jager F, Jager A, Schumacher P, Wolf M, Fritz U, et al. Biomechanical properties of CAD/CAM-individualized nickel-titanium lingual retainers: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 2018;79:309-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-018-0144-2
  22. Zinelis S, Pandis N, Al Jabbari YS, Eliades G, Eliades T. Does long-term intraoral service affect the mechanical properties and elemental composition of multistranded wires of lingual fixed retainers? Eur J Orthod 2018;40:126-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx045
  23. Al-Nimri K, Al Habashneh R, Obeidat M. Gingival health and relapse tendency: a prospective study of two types of lower fixed retainers. Aust Orthod J 2009;25:142-6.
  24. Schneider E, Ruf S. Upper bonded retainers: survival and failure rates. Angle Orthod 2011;81:1050-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/022211-132.1
  25. Arn ML, Dritsas K, Pandis N, Kloukos D. The effects of fixed orthodontic retainers on periodontal health: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;157:156-64.e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.10.010
  26. Wouters C, Lamberts TA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Renkema AM. Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention. Orthod Craniofac Res 2019;22:69-80.
  27. Doldo T, Di Vece L, Ferrari Cagidiaco E, Nuti N, Parrini S, Ferrari M, et al. A New Generation of Orthodontic retainer using 3d printing technology: clinical cases report. J Osseointegration 2018;10:142-8.
  28. Macauley D, Garvey TM, Dowling AH, Fleming GJ. Using Little's Irregularity Index in orthodontics: outdated and inaccurate? J Dent 2012;40:1127-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.09.010
  29. Forde K, Storey M, Littlewood SJ, Scott P, Luther F, Kang J. Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 1: stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction outcomes after 12 months. Eur J Orthod 2018;40:387-98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx058
  30. Hu X, Ling J, Wu X. The CAD/CAM method is more efficient and stable in fabricating of lingual retainer compared with the conventional method. Biomed J Sci Tech Res 2019;18:13609-12.

Cited by

  1. A prospective randomized controlled trial on the comparative clinical efficiency and hygiene of a ceramic inter locking retainer and a flexible spiral wire bonded retainer vol.32, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_1050_20
  2. Orthodontic retention protocols: an evidence-based overview vol.230, pp.11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2954-7
  3. Three-dimensional evaluation of the transfer accuracy of a bracket jig fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing to the anterior dentition: An in vitro study vol.51, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.6.375