Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated Patients

Objective:This review aimed at analyzing the literature comparing vacuum-formed retainers and lingual-bonded retainers for maintaining treatment stability and periodontal health and evaluating retainer failure and patient satisfaction.Methods:Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ov...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Seerab Husain, Shantha Sundari, Ravindra Kumar Jain, Arthi Balasubramaniam
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Galenos Yayinevi 2022-12-01
Series:Turkish Journal of Orthodontics
Subjects:
Online Access: http://www.turkjorthod.org/archives/archive-detail/article-preview/vacuum-formed-retainers-versus-lingual-bonded-reta/57856
_version_ 1797767484657369088
author Seerab Husain
Shantha Sundari
Ravindra Kumar Jain
Arthi Balasubramaniam
author_facet Seerab Husain
Shantha Sundari
Ravindra Kumar Jain
Arthi Balasubramaniam
author_sort Seerab Husain
collection DOAJ
description Objective:This review aimed at analyzing the literature comparing vacuum-formed retainers and lingual-bonded retainers for maintaining treatment stability and periodontal health and evaluating retainer failure and patient satisfaction.Methods:Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. Only randomized controlled trials were involved. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Meta-analysis was performed and certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Results:Five randomized controlled trials were included for qualitative analysis and 2 studies were included for quantitative analysis. Two studies concluded that lingual-bonded retainers were more effective than vacuum-formed retainers in maintaining treatment stability. Two studies had a high risk of bias and 3 studies had some concerns. No statistically significant difference in Little’s Irregularity Index (standard mean difference = −0.10; P value = .61), inter-canine width (standard mean difference = 0.66; P value = .09), inter-molar width (standard mean difference = 0.08; P value = .85), arch length (standard mean difference = −0.18; P value = .60) between the 2 retainers was noted. Periodontal status and retainer failure rate (odds ratio= 2.28; P value = .23) were similar in both retainers. Patient discomfort, soreness, and speech difficulty were more with vacuum-formed retainers and oral hygiene maintenance was easier with vacuum-formed retainers.Conclusion:A very low-level certainty of evidence suggests that both vacuum-formed retainers and lingual-bonded retainers were equally effective in maintaining treatment stability. Periodontal status and retainer failures were similar in both retainers. Vacuum- formed retainers were better for oral hygiene maintenance but were associated with discomfort, soreness, and speech difficulty than lingual-bonded retainers.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T20:39:27Z
format Article
id doaj.art-ba501fae9a4e443d82fdce8bbececca9
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2528-9659
2148-9505
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T20:39:27Z
publishDate 2022-12-01
publisher Galenos Yayinevi
record_format Article
series Turkish Journal of Orthodontics
spelling doaj.art-ba501fae9a4e443d82fdce8bbececca92023-08-01T11:04:43ZengGalenos YayineviTurkish Journal of Orthodontics2528-96592148-95052022-12-0135430732010.5152/TurkJOrthod.2022.2116913049054Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated PatientsSeerab Husain0Shantha Sundari1Ravindra Kumar Jain2Arthi Balasubramaniam3 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India Objective:This review aimed at analyzing the literature comparing vacuum-formed retainers and lingual-bonded retainers for maintaining treatment stability and periodontal health and evaluating retainer failure and patient satisfaction.Methods:Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. Only randomized controlled trials were involved. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Meta-analysis was performed and certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Results:Five randomized controlled trials were included for qualitative analysis and 2 studies were included for quantitative analysis. Two studies concluded that lingual-bonded retainers were more effective than vacuum-formed retainers in maintaining treatment stability. Two studies had a high risk of bias and 3 studies had some concerns. No statistically significant difference in Little’s Irregularity Index (standard mean difference = −0.10; P value = .61), inter-canine width (standard mean difference = 0.66; P value = .09), inter-molar width (standard mean difference = 0.08; P value = .85), arch length (standard mean difference = −0.18; P value = .60) between the 2 retainers was noted. Periodontal status and retainer failure rate (odds ratio= 2.28; P value = .23) were similar in both retainers. Patient discomfort, soreness, and speech difficulty were more with vacuum-formed retainers and oral hygiene maintenance was easier with vacuum-formed retainers.Conclusion:A very low-level certainty of evidence suggests that both vacuum-formed retainers and lingual-bonded retainers were equally effective in maintaining treatment stability. Periodontal status and retainer failures were similar in both retainers. Vacuum- formed retainers were better for oral hygiene maintenance but were associated with discomfort, soreness, and speech difficulty than lingual-bonded retainers. http://www.turkjorthod.org/archives/archive-detail/article-preview/vacuum-formed-retainers-versus-lingual-bonded-reta/57856 orthodontic retainerperiodontalrelapseretentionstabilitysurvival rate
spellingShingle Seerab Husain
Shantha Sundari
Ravindra Kumar Jain
Arthi Balasubramaniam
Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated Patients
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics
orthodontic retainer
periodontal
relapse
retention
stability
survival rate
title Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated Patients
title_full Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated Patients
title_fullStr Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated Patients
title_full_unstemmed Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated Patients
title_short Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated Patients
title_sort vacuum formed retainers versus lingual bonded retainers a systematic review and meta analysis of stability of treatment outcomes in orthodontically treated patients
topic orthodontic retainer
periodontal
relapse
retention
stability
survival rate
url http://www.turkjorthod.org/archives/archive-detail/article-preview/vacuum-formed-retainers-versus-lingual-bonded-reta/57856
work_keys_str_mv AT seerabhusain vacuumformedretainersversuslingualbondedretainersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstabilityoftreatmentoutcomesinorthodonticallytreatedpatients
AT shanthasundari vacuumformedretainersversuslingualbondedretainersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstabilityoftreatmentoutcomesinorthodonticallytreatedpatients
AT ravindrakumarjain vacuumformedretainersversuslingualbondedretainersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstabilityoftreatmentoutcomesinorthodonticallytreatedpatients
AT arthibalasubramaniam vacuumformedretainersversuslingualbondedretainersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstabilityoftreatmentoutcomesinorthodonticallytreatedpatients