Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To evaluate three-dimensional anterior tooth position changes during orthodontic retention and to compare the effectiveness of three distinct fixed retainer fabrication designs including robotically bent retainers alongside with removable retainers.</p> Materials and methods <p>This retrospective cohort study included 113 patients (226 dental arches; mean retention period 1.3 ± 0.6 years). Combined fixed lingual plus removable retention (group 1, <i>n</i> = 148 arches) comprised CAD/CAM Memotain, conventional multistranded stainless-steel (Twistflex), and robotically bent retainers; group 2 (<i>n</i> = 78 arches) received removable retention only. Digital model superimposition using a three-dimensional tooth-specific coordinate system quantified rotational and translational tooth movements, Little’s Irregularity Index (LII), transverse arch widths, and bonding failures.</p> Results <p>Combined fixed and removable retention showed higher stability than removable-only retention (55% vs. 33% stable arches). Removable retention increased the odds of moderate-to-severe instability (maxilla OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.74–10.98; mandible OR 14.35, 95% CI 3.24–63.56), whereas fixed lingual retention was protective (maxilla OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.58; mandible OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.31). Instability mainly involved canine rotations and vertical translations. Robotically bent and CAD/CAM Memotain retainers showed the lowest movement magnitudes and variability, with minimal LII increases. Intercanine and intermolar widths remained stable across fixed retainers. Bonding failures (25%) strongly predicted severe instability.</p> Conclusions <p>Three-dimensional tooth movements during retention mainly involve canine rotations and vertical translations. All fixed retainer designs (Twistflex, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent) provided greater stability than removable-only retention.</p> Clinical relevance <p>All fixed retainer designs require regular monitoring of bonding integrity; digitally fabricated and robotically bent retainers demonstrated marginally lower dimensional variability, which may be clinically relevant over longer observation periods.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Three-dimensional stability during orthodontic retention: A comparative analysis of conventional, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent fixed retainers versus removable appliances

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月23日

查看全文
  • Jeannine Köck,
  • Franziska Lang,
  • Christian Niederau,
  • Marta Rizk,
  • Hannah Al-Sakati,
  • Norbert Lang,
  • Michael Wolf,
  • Isabel Knaup

摘要

Objectives

To evaluate three-dimensional anterior tooth position changes during orthodontic retention and to compare the effectiveness of three distinct fixed retainer fabrication designs including robotically bent retainers alongside with removable retainers.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort study included 113 patients (226 dental arches; mean retention period 1.3 ± 0.6 years). Combined fixed lingual plus removable retention (group 1, n = 148 arches) comprised CAD/CAM Memotain, conventional multistranded stainless-steel (Twistflex), and robotically bent retainers; group 2 (n = 78 arches) received removable retention only. Digital model superimposition using a three-dimensional tooth-specific coordinate system quantified rotational and translational tooth movements, Little’s Irregularity Index (LII), transverse arch widths, and bonding failures.

Results

Combined fixed and removable retention showed higher stability than removable-only retention (55% vs. 33% stable arches). Removable retention increased the odds of moderate-to-severe instability (maxilla OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.74–10.98; mandible OR 14.35, 95% CI 3.24–63.56), whereas fixed lingual retention was protective (maxilla OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.58; mandible OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.31). Instability mainly involved canine rotations and vertical translations. Robotically bent and CAD/CAM Memotain retainers showed the lowest movement magnitudes and variability, with minimal LII increases. Intercanine and intermolar widths remained stable across fixed retainers. Bonding failures (25%) strongly predicted severe instability.

Conclusions

Three-dimensional tooth movements during retention mainly involve canine rotations and vertical translations. All fixed retainer designs (Twistflex, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent) provided greater stability than removable-only retention.

Clinical relevance

All fixed retainer designs require regular monitoring of bonding integrity; digitally fabricated and robotically bent retainers demonstrated marginally lower dimensional variability, which may be clinically relevant over longer observation periods.