ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

A phase of retention is normally required to prevent the inherent tendency of the teeth to return to their original position.2 Stability can only be achieved if the forces derived from the periodontal and gingival tissues, the orofacial soft tissues, the occlusal forces and post treatment facial growth are in equilibrium. Keeping in mind the importance of retention in Orthodontic treatment, various types of retainers i.e fixed or removable are given after completion of Orthodontic treatment.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review Article http//doi.org/10.18231/j.ijodr.2019.003
IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research, January-March, 2019;5(1):11-15 11
Retainer in orthodontics
Rahul Kumar Anand1,*, Tripti Tikku2, Rohit Khanna3, Rana Pratap Maurya4, Snehlata Verma5, Kamana
Shrivastava6
1Junior Resident III, 2Professor and HOD, 3Professor, 4-6Reader, 1-6Dept. of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1-5Babu Banarasi
das college of dental sciences, Faizabad road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
*Corresponding Author: Rahul Kumar Anand
Email: rahulmtg@gmail.com
Abstract
Retainer is a removable retainer that is popular in the present day. Compared with conventional fixed and removable orthodontic retainers,
it is a more esthetic, comfortable, and inexpensive appliance.
Keywords: Retainer removable fixed.
Introduction
Malocclusion is not a disease by itself, it is s a
morphological deviation from normal growth and
development which might be or might not be associated
with any pathological condition.1
Orthodontic treatment is recommended for all classes of
malocclusion, in order to restore normal functions, improve
jaws relation, and achieve the required aesthetic goals.1
Besides achieving patient’s goals, be it functional or
esthetics, treatment result have to be retained for its long
term success.1
A phase of retention is normally required to prevent the
inherent tendency of the teeth to return to their original
position.2 Stability can only be achieved if the forces
derived from the periodontal and gingival tissues, the
orofacial soft tissues, the occlusal forces and post treatment
facial growth are in equilibrium. Keeping in mind the
importance of retention in Orthodontic treatment, various
types of retainers i.e fixed or removable are given after
completion of Orthodontic treatment.2
During formulation of treatment plan, type of retention
depending on the correction achieved by Orthodontic
treatment should also be documented before hand.2 There
are certain conditions like high placed canine, anterior
crossbites and posterior crossbites with proper axial
inclination required limited or no retention. Class I non
extraction cases and condition like, maximum retention
corrected deepbite, all first premolar extraction.2
Hellman gave nine theorems of retention whose
principles should be followed while executing Orthodontic
treatment and after the completion of active treatment i.e in
retention phase2.
This review article will list various types of retainers
used in Orthodontics and these are broadly classified
into:
1. Removable retainer
2. Fixed retainers
Removable Retainers
The removable retainers provide adequate retention for
intra-arch stability and are useful as retainers in patients in
where
Growth is remaining and are compliant. Various types
of removable retainer are:3
1. Hawley’s retainer and its modification
2. Clip on retainer
3. Wrap around retainer
4. Vander linden retainer
5. Clear retainer
Hawley’s Retainer
The most common removable retainer is the Hawley
retainer, designed in the 1920s by E H Hawley. It
incorporates clasps on molar teeth and has a characteristic
outer bowwith adjustment loops, from canine to canine.4
There is an acrylic coverage of the palate, which
automatically provides a potential bite plane effect to retain
overbite correction and rigid enough to maintain palatal
expansion achieved during Orthodontic treatment.4(Fig. 1 a)
Mechanical retention can be a problem in patients with
short clinical crowns or exfoliated deciduous teeth4
The clasp locations for a Hawley retainer must be
selected carefully, since clasp wires crossing the occlusal
table can disrupt rather than retain the tooth relationships,
established during the treatment. Circumferential clasps on
the terminal molar may be preferred over the more effective
Adams clasp if the occlusion is tight.4
When first premolars have been extracted, standard
design of Hawley retainer cannot keep the extraction space
closed, rather it tends to open up the extraction space
aswires of labial bow extends distal to canines, tending to
act like a wedge at an extraction site. A common
modifications of the Hawley retainer for use in such cases
can be-
1. Labial bow soldered to the bridge of Adams clasps on
the first molars, so that the action of the bow helps to
hold the extraction space closed.4
Rahul Kumar Anand et al. Retainer in orthodontics
IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research, January-March, 2019;5(1):11-15 12
2. Using long labial bow extending from 2nd premolar to
2nd premolar on the other side.4
3. Wrap the labial bow around the entire arch, till the first
molars and using circumferential clasps on second
molars for retention.(Fig. 1 d)4
4. Fitted labial bow:-A 22 gauge SS wire of appropriate
length is taken and adapted according to the contour of
the individual teeth at the level of the junction of the
middle and incisal thirds, staring from the central
incisors progressing towards the junction of middle and
distal thirds of the labial surface of the canine.4 At this
point the free ends of the wires are bent at 90 degrees
towards the apex and the further construction is carried
out in a similar way as in case of a short labial bow.
Used to retract anteriors when the space is present distal
to canine.(Fig. 1 d)4
5. To bring the labial wire from the baseplate between the
lateral incisor and canine and to bend or solder a wire
extension distally to control the canines.(Fig. 1 b)
Fig. 1: A hawley retainer, b: Hawley with soldered labial
bow, c: Hawley with long labial bow, d: Hawley with
fitted labial bow
Removable wraparound retainers
Fig. 2: clip on retainer
Clip On Retainer
A second major type of removable retainer is a clip-on
retainer (C3-3 clip or 4-4 clip).4 It consist of acrylic bar
(usually wire reinforced) along the labial and lingual
surfaces of the teeth.4
This retainer though quite esthetic is often less
comfortable than a Hawley retainer. It is used to control
alignment of anterior teeth or preferred in mandibular arch
when mandibular teeth were well aligned and prior to
treatment, retention of these teeth is unnecessary and
undercuts lingual to molars make to difficult to extend
retainer posteriorly4 (Fig. 2)
It is generally used in cases with anterior spacing and
can also be used to realign mandibular incisor if mild
crowding develop after the treatment.
Fig. 3: Begg’s modified wraparound retainer
Begg’s Modified Wraparound Retainer
Original Wraparound retainer was popularized by
P.R.Begg
It consists of labial wire that extended till the last
erupted molar and curves around it to get embedded in
acrylic that spans the palate.5 There was no cross -over of
wires between the canine and second premolar there by
eliminating the risk of extraction space opening up.5
The original design was modified by placing a single
arrowhead in distal undercut of last tooth both first and
second molar can be incorporated in the retainer to improve
retention of the appliance.6(Fig. 3)
Both these type of wraparound retainer have following
advantage:
1. Overcomes the limitation of Hawley type retainers with
Adam’s clasps or labial wire crossing the occlusion that
create interference or can open that up to the extraction
space.4
2. Better retention than the conventional appliance
Vander linden retainer
The Vander linden retainer is constructed to offer
complete control over the maxillary anterior teeth, with firm
fixation provided by clasps on the canines. The continuous
Rahul Kumar Anand et al. Retainer in orthodontics
IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research, January-March, 2019;5(1):11-15 13
0.028"labial arch and left and right three quarter
0.032"molar clasps are embedded in the palatal acrylic
plate.7 The premolars and molars should be of acrylic,
except where there are clasps.7 This retainer does not
usually interfere with the occlusion, because most maxillary
lateral incisors have rounded disto-incisal corners with
sufficient space for the retainer wire on the palatal side.7
Nevertheless the patient’s occlusion should be checked to
ensure that 0.028" wire can pass between the lateral incisor
and canine without causing interference.7
Fig. 4
Clear retainer/invisible retainer are also a type of
removable retainer made with varying thickness of
preformed thermoplastic sheets.8 They are considered as
invisible ratianer that can be made by Biostar or Vaccum
pressure machines using thermoform sheets. (Essix retainer,
thermoplastic retainer, or vacuumformed retainer) were the
first thermoplastic clear retainers introduced in 1993 by Dr.
John Sheridan.8
As these retainers are made entirely of transparent
plastic, which makes them less noticeable and more esthetic
than the traditional wire retainers, they are easily accepted
by the patients.8
These retainers also acts as positioners and gently guide
the teeth into proper position and can correct tooth
discrepancies. They can serve as temporary bridge for
missing anterior teeth. They also act as a night guard for
subjects who have the habit of Bruxism and also have a bite
plane like effect. The delivery of these retainers require less
chair side time. They encourage good dental hygiene as
patients can take out their retainer and brush or floss their
teeth.8
However clear retainer has certain disadvantages like
they demand good patient compliance, interferen with
settling of occlusion, and can be lost due to its
transparency.8
There is certain contraindication to use of clear
retainers like swollen interproximal tissue, Severe
pretreatment dental rotations, in cases where arch expansion
has been done or inpatient with anterior open bite.
Several Modifications of clear retainer have been given
like
1. Clear retainer with bite plane- bite plane is added in
anterior region
2. Clear retainer with a crown or denture teeth for missing
teeth
3. Osamu active retainer for correction of mild relapse
This retainer consists of two superimposed layers. The
inner layer, made of 1.5mm ethylene vinyl acetate
copolymer adapts to the interproximal areas and covers the
palatal and lingual aspects of the teeth.8 The outer layer,
made of 0.75mm hard elastic polycarbonate, covers the
occlusal aspects of the teeth and makes the retainer elastic
and stable. The Osamu active retainer is inexpensive, simple
to make and It can correct individual tooth positions while
maintaining close adaptation to the remaining teeth8.
Fixed Retainers
A fixed retainer typically consists of a passively bonded
wire to the lingual side of the teeth in maxillary and
mandibular incisor region. The complete analysis of patients
bite must be taken. Orthodontists prescribe fixed retainers,
especially in cases where stability is questionable and long
term retention is required4. As fixed retainer are easily
acceptable by the patients and their popularity has increased
in recent times. Initially, for fixed retainer rigid wire was
used that did not provide physiologic tooth movement.
However, nowadays we use flexible wires like
multistranded or ligature were twisted together as fixed
retainer.4
Types of Fixed Retainers
Based on type of attachment to teeth
1. Banded Retainers- canine were banded to fix the
retainer that was esthetically unacceptable
2. Bonded Lingual Retainers -Retainer bonded on the
lingual aspect for maintaining anterior tooth position
relatively independence’s of patient’s cooperation.
3. Band and Spur Retainer- used in cases where a single
tooth has been orthodontically treated for rotation,
correction or labiolingual displacement. The tooth that
has been moved is banded and spurs are soldered on to
the bands so as to overlap the adjacent teeth.
4. 4-4 crozat retainer: 4-4 Crozat appliance has cribs on
the first bicuspids, recurved double lapping lingual
finger springs and a labial bow. It combines may of
theadvantages of other types of retainers and offers firm
retention, because of its clasping mechanism.9 It
prevent good labiolingual control of anterior teeth to
maintain or restore arch form in the lower or upper arch
and is a flexible retainer. It also provides adequate oral
hygiene being removable.9 The major disadvantages of
the appliance are is that must be fabricated at a quality
laboratory, not making it cost effective and can break
easily.9
Rahul Kumar Anand et al. Retainer in orthodontics
IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research, January-March, 2019;5(1):11-15 14
Based on the material used
1. First generation fixed retainer : Plain blue Elgiloy wire
with a loop at each terminal end is used10
2. Second generationfixed retainer: Similar diameter
multistranded wires are used
3. Third generation fixed retainer: Round 0.032” stainless
steel or 0.030” gold coated wires are used10
4. Recent advancement includes Resin fiberglass bonded
retainers
With introduction of resin resinforced fiberglass composites,
Michael developed these retainers. The main advantages are
that they are rigid and impervious. The Patients appreciate
the tooth colored material and the comfort that is provided
by smoothening of the margins with rubber abrasive points
or wheels. Retainer sections can easily be recontoured,
removed or repaired in the mouth. As no metal wires are
used, additional material can be applied to the teeth or the
fiberglass or both.10
-
Fig. 5: bonded canine to canine
Based on extensions of lingual retainer
1. Canine to canine retainer These are commonly used in
lower anterior region. Canine are banded and a thick
wire is contoured over the lingual aspects and soldered
to the canine bands.11 The bands predispose to poor oral
hygiene and are unesthetic, hence not preformed
nowadays. Bonded canine to canine retainer overcome
this limitation and are used commonly. These are used
in non extraction cases or in mandibular incisor
extraction cases.11 (Fig. 5)
2. Bonded premolar to premolar retainer- These are
commonly used in extraction cases, where extraction of
first premolar had been planned11 (Fig. 6)
Fig. 6: bonded premolar to premolar
3. Banded molar molar retainer:-The molar to molar
mandibular retainer is made by the heavy gauge wire
soldered on the molar bands. It allows the mandibular
canines and molars to settle naturally and maintain the
arch 12
Bonded Fixed Retainer
Indications
Zachrisson listed the following indications for clinical use
of flexible wire retainer: 11
1. Closed median diastema
2. Spaced anterior teeth
3. Adult cases with potential post-orthodontic tooth
migration
4. Accidental loss of maxillary incisors requiring closure
and retention of large anterior space
5. Spacing reopening, after mandibular incisor extractions
6. Severely rotated maxillary incisors or severe
pretreatment crowding
7. Palatally impacted canines
8. Planned increase in mandibular intercanine width
Advantages
1. Invisible, are well-tolerated by patients
2. Virtually compliance-free.
3. No damage to the teeth and to the hard and soft tissues
adjacent to the wire.
Disadvantages
1. Time-consuming
2. Technique sensitive
3. Difficult to maintain, encouraging plaque and calculus
accumulation.
Conclusion
This review article suggest indication, limitation and
precaution takes with various types of retainers used in
orthodontics be it removable or fixed. The selection of
appropriate means for providing retention should state from
day one of orthodontic treatment planning for attaining
optimal result post treatment that lasts for life time.
Conflict of Interest: None.
Reference
1. Melrose C, Millett DT. Toward a perspective on orthodontic
retention? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:507
514.
2. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR,
Worthington HV. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth
position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane
Database Systematic Reviews. 2006;25;(1):CD002283.
Review.2009
3. Rami Reddy.M.S, Suma.S, Chandrasekhar.B.R, Ankur
Chaukse.Retention Appliances A Review. Int J Dental Clin
2010:2(3):31-36.
4. Proffit W, Fields H, Sarver D. Contemporary orthodontics:
Mosby Inc; 2007.
5. Fernandez Sanchez J, Pernia Ramirez I, Martin Alonso J.
Osamu active retainer for correction of mild relapse. J Clin
Orthod 1998;32:26-28.
Rahul Kumar Anand et al. Retainer in orthodontics
IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research, January-March, 2019;5(1):11-15 15
6. Sheridan J, LeDoux W, McMinn R. Essix retainers: fabrication
and supervision for permanent retention. J clin orthod JCO
1993;27(1):37-45.
7. Sylvia Jaderberg,Ingalill Feldmann and Christer Engstrom
.”Removable thermoplastic appliances as orthodontic retainers
aprospective study of different wear regimens”, Eur J Orthod
2012;34:475479.
8. Linden F. The Van der Linden Retainer. J Clin Orthod
2003;37(5):260-7.
9. Christie TE. Molar-to-molar mandibular retainer. J Clin
Orthod 1985;19(7):500-4.
10. Diamond M. Resin fiberglass bonded retainer. J clin orthod
JCO 1987;21(3):182-183.
How to cite this article: Anand RK, Tikku T, Khanna
R, Maurya RP, Verma S, Shrivastava K, Retainer in
orthodontics. J Orthod Dentofacial Res 2019;5(1):11-15
... 7 Essix retainers were designed as a budgetfriendly, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing substitute to common bonded retainers and removable dental appliances. 8 The Essix retainer provides good short term retention. However, the growth of bacteria on these acrylic and plastic materials highlights the importance of thorough cleaning. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: Despite the significant advancements made in orthodontic treatments, retaining
Article
Full-text available
Background: Fixed retainer are a practical retention method because they require minimal cooperation from the patient. Fixed reteiner are made from various types of wire, one of which is nickel titanium. However, when using a fixed retention device, several problems arise, such as fracture of the wire, loss of bond between the surface of the wire and composite, failure of attachment of the composite to the teeth, and unexpected tooth movement. Objective: To determine the shape memory and superelastic properties of nickel titanium wire with dimensions of 0.010 x 0.030 inches used as a retention device after a three point bending test. Method: This research is a laboratory experimental study using 5 samples of nickel-titanium wire measuring 0.010 x 0.030 inches. The wire length is 30 mm. The collected data was then tested using a tested. Results: Nickel titanium wire measuring 0.010 x 0.030 inches with a deflection of 1.5 mm shows a graph with a smaller hysteresis than a deflection of 2 mm with a wider hysteresis. Nickel-titanium wire measuring 0.010 x 0.030 inches with a deflection of 1.5 mm and 2 mm shows that the wire experiences permanent deformation before returning to its initial shape, which could be due to the amount of deflection applied exceeding the tensile yield strength range limit of the wire. Conclusion: The amount of deflection given to the nickeltitanium wire samples is 1,5 mm and 2 mm influences the amount of force released. The deflection of a given wire determines how much force can be generated when the wire is applied.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate and compare stability after 6 months of Essix retainer use. Patients’ perceptions of wearing the retainer were also evaluated. A total of 69 patients, 53 girls and 16 boys [mean age 15.7 years, standard deviation (SD) 1.96], were included in the study and randomized into two groups with different wear regimens; full-time wear for 3 months and thereafter at night (group A) compared to full-time wear for 1 week and thereafter at night only (group B). Sixty patients completed the study and thus, group A comprised 30 maxillary retainers and 18 mandibular retainers and group B 30 maxillary and 18 mandibular retainers. Little’s irregularity index (LII), overjet, and overbite were measured at debond (T1) and after 6 months (T2). Differences within and between groups were analysed with a Mann–Whitney test. At T2, all patients completed a questionnaire in order to evaluate their experience of wearing an Essix retainer and how they complied with the given instructions. Differences in LII during T1–T2 were 0.44 and 0.49 mm for group A and B, respectively, but with no significant difference between the groups. There were also no significant changes in overjet and overbite within or between the groups during T1–T2. According to the responses to the questionnaire, the retainer was well tolerated by the patients. It was therefore concluded that the Essix retainer is sufficient for maintaining the results after orthodontic treatment and that night-time wear is adequate.
Article
Retention is one of the most difficult challenges facing the clinician in orthodontics. In this article we collate current knowledge regarding the origin of orthodontic relapse and attempt to rationalize the necessary factors in planning orthodontic retention. Despite extensive research, the various elements leading to relapse of treated malocclusions are incompletely understood, giving rise to wide variation in retention protocols among clinicians. Informed consent-with emphasis on the features of the original malocclusion and the patient's growth pattern, the type of treatment performed, the need for adjunctive surgical procedures, the type of retainer, and the duration of retention-should be obtained during the planning of the retention phase. True perspective on orthodontic retention is lacking and there is a great need for further research to ensure that evidence-based clinical practice is adopted in retention strategies.
Article
Background: 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. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. Search methods: 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. Selection criteria: RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. Data collection and analysis: 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. Main results: 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. Authors' conclusions: 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.
Retention Appliances -A Review
  • Rami Reddy
  • S Suma
  • . B R Chandrasekhar
  • Ankur Chaukse
Rami Reddy.M.S, Suma.S, Chandrasekhar.B.R, Ankur Chaukse.Retention Appliances -A Review. Int J Dental Clin 2010:2(3):31-36.