↓ Skip to main content

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
35 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002283.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon J Littlewood, Declan T Millett, Bridget Doubleday, David R Bearn, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of retention, there is a tendency for teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse, almost every person who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention. To evaluate the effects of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 26 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 26 January 2016). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help identify any unpublished trials. RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. The outcomes of interest were: how well the teeth were stabilised, failure of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses when studies with similar methodology reported the same outcome. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index to measure relapse. We included 15 studies (1722 participants) in the review. There are also four ongoing studies and four studies await classification. The 15 included studies evaluated four comparisons: removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies); different types of fixed retainers (four studies); different types of removable retainers (eight studies); and one study compared a combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four studies had an unclear risk of bias and seven studies had a high risk of bias. Removable versus fixed retainers Thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03). This was based on one trial with 84 participants that was at high risk of bias; it was low quality evidence. Results on retainer failure were inconsistent. There was evidence of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; one trial, 84 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence), but participants found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60). Fixed versus fixed retainersThe studies did not report stability, adverse effects or participant satisfaction. It was possible to pool the data on retention failure from three trials that compared polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer in the lower arch with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57; moderate heterogeneity; three trials, 228 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in failure rates. It was also possible to pool the data from two trials that compared the same types of upper fixed retainers, with a similar finding: RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.78; low heterogeneity; two trials, 174 participants, low quality evidence). Removable versus removable retainersOne study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainer showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (full-time) (both low quality evidence).In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers. Other retainer comparisonsAnother study with a low risk of bias looked at three different approaches to retention for people with crowding, but normal jaw relationships. The study found that there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer. We did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers full-time provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants.Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 178 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Unspecified 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 10%
Other 61 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 63%
Unspecified 26 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 16 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2019.
All research outputs
#321,181
of 12,533,639 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#975
of 10,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,200
of 333,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#34
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,533,639 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.