Comparison of Memotain Retainers to Conventional Fixed Retainers Review Article
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review assesses and compares the use of fixed retainers manufactured by CAD CAM and conventional methods in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
Methodology: Data from the selected studies were collected using customised data collection forms. Primary analysis involved assessing the stability of orthodontic treatment over time through measurements taken from dental casts and assessing the impact on periodontal health. Secondary aspects involved an evaluation of the rates at which retainers failed and gathered valuable insights from outcomes reported by patients.
Results: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included involving 601 participants. During the initial 6 months, no notable variations in the distance between canine teeth or the length of the dental arch were noted when comparing CAD/CAM retainers with conventional retainers. Nevertheless, it's noteworthy that CAD/CAM retainers exhibited superior performance compared to stainless steel retainers (single strand). Significant differences in Little's irregularity index, was evident at 3-month and 6-month intervals. Distinctions with limited clinical significance were noted in multi-stranded stainless-steel retainers at 6-month follow-up assessment. Regarding oral health aspects, CAD/CAM retainers displayed lower plaque index scores compared to traditional retainers. In terms of durability, most retainers demonstrated comparable failure rates. In one study, CAD/CAM retainers were associated with a greater rate of failure, which resulted in the premature termination of that specific study.
Conclusion: CAD/CAM fixed retainers offer a promising alternative to traditional options and may promote better periodontal health due to lower plaque index scores. Nevertheless, to assess their effectiveness and long-term durability, more studies are needed, particularly regarding failure rates. In the absence of comprehensive evidence, the utilisation of customisation of CAD/CAM retainers is advisable for individual clinical cases.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Abdulraheem S, Schütz-Fransson U, Bjerklin K. Teeth movement 12 years after orthodontic treatment with and without retainer: relapse or usual changes? Eur J Orthod. 2020 Jan 27;42(1):52-9.
Littlewood SJ, Kandasamy S, Huang G. Retention and relapse in clinical practice. Aust Dent J. 2017 Mar;62 Suppl 1:51-7.
Al-Moghrabi D, Littlewood SJ, Fleming PS. Orthodontic retention protocols: an evidence-based overview. Br Dent J. 2021;230(11):770-6.
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. 2017;40(4):387-98.
Krämer A, Sjöström M, Hallman M, Feldmann I. Vacuum-formed retainer versus bonded retainer for dental stabilization in the mandible—a randomized controlled trial. Part I: retentive capacity 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2019;42(5):551-8.
Storey M, Forde K, Littlewood SJ, Scott P, Luther F, Kang J. Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 2: periodontal health outcomes after 12 months. Eur J Orthod. 2017;40(4):399-408.
Kučera J, Littlewood SJ, Marek I. Fixed retention: pitfalls and complications. Br Dent J. 2021;230(11):703-8.
Kocher KE, Gebistorf MC, Pandis N, Fudalej PS, Katsaros C. Survival of maxillary and mandibular bonded retainers 10 to 15 years after orthodontic treatment: a retrospective observational study. Prog Orthod. 2019;20:1-10.
Tacken MPE, Cosyn J, De Wilde P, Aerts J, Govaerts E, Vannet BV. Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study. Eur J Orthod. 2009;32(2):117-23.
Alrawas MB, Kashoura Y, Tosun Ö, Öz U. Comparing the effects of CAD/CAM nickel‐titanium lingual retainers on teeth stability and periodontal health with conventional fixed and removable retainers: a randomized clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2020;24(3):241-50.
Adanur-Atmaca R, Çokakoğlu S, Öztürk F. Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(4):468-76.
Bardideh E, Ghorbani M, Shafaee H, et al. A comparison of CAD/CAM-based fixed retainers versus conventional fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2023;45(5):545-57.
Gera A, Pullisaar H, Cattaneo PM, Gera S, Vandevska-Radunovic V, Cornelis MA. Stability, survival, and patient satisfaction with CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 6-month follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2022;45(1):58-67.
Gelin E, Seidel L, Bruwier A, Albert A, Charavet C. Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: A randomized controlled trial. Korean J Orthod. 2020;50(6):373-82.
Jowett AC, Littlewood SJ, Hodge TM, Dhaliwal HK, Wu J. CAD/CAM nitinol bonded retainer versus a chairside rectangular-chain bonded retainer: A multicentre randomised controlled trial. J Orthod. 2022;50(1):55-68.
Shim H, Foley P, Bankhead B, Kim KB. Comparative assessment of relapse and failure between CAD/CAM stainless steel and standard stainless steel fixed retainers in orthodontic retention patients. Angle Orthod. 2021;92(1):87-94.
Padmos JAD, Fudalej PS, Renkema AM. Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(4):496-504.
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. 2020;82(1):32-41.