Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Aug;154(2):167-174.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.01.007.

Effects of fixed vs removable orthodontic retainers on stability and periodontal health: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of fixed vs removable orthodontic retainers on stability and periodontal health: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Dalya Al-Moghrabi et al. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Aug.

Abstract

Introduction: Our objectives were to compare the stability of treatment and periodontal health with fixed vs removable orthodontic retainers over a 4-year period.

Methods: A 4-year follow-up of participants randomly assigned to either mandibular fixed retainers from canine to canine or removable vacuum-formed retainers was undertaken. Irregularity of the mandibular anterior segment, mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths, arch length, and extraction space opening were recorded. Gingival inflammation, calculus and plaque levels, clinical attachment level, and bleeding on probing were assessed. The outcome assessor was blinded when possible.

Results: Forty-two participants were included in the analysis, 21 per group. Some relapse occurred in both treatment groups at the 4-year follow-up; however, after adjusting for confounders, the median between-groups difference was 1.64 mm higher in participants wearing vacuum-formed retainers (P = 0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30, 2.98 mm). No statistical difference was found between the treatment groups in terms of intercanine (P = 0.52; 95% CI, -1.07, 0.55) and intermolar (P = 0.55; 95% CI, -1.72, 0.93) widths, arch length (P = 0.99; 95% CI, -1.15, 1.14), and extraction space opening (P = 0.84; 95% CI, -1.54, 1.86). There was also no statistical difference in relation to periodontal outcomes between the treatment groups, with significant gingival inflammation and plaque levels common findings.

Conclusions: This prolonged study is the first to suggest that fixed retention offers the potential benefit of improved preservation of alignment of the mandibular labial segment in the long term. However, both types of retainers were associated with gingival inflammation and elevated plaque scores.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types