A complication with orthodontic fixed retainers: a case report

Abudiak, Hani; Shelton, Andrew; Spencer, Roy W.; Burns, Luke; Littlewood, SJ

doi:10.12968/ortu.2011.4.4.112

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The retainers also need to be checked regularly to ensure that they are still bonded in place. In addition, there are reports of occasional, severe, unwanted tooth movements caused by different types of failed/faulty fixed retainers as a result of the bonding of some or all teeth within the span of the fixed retainer . This method of retention makes the clinician responsible for the maintenance of the fixed retainer.…”

Section: Types Of Retainersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention and relapse in clinical practice

Littlewood

Kandasamy

Huang

2017

Australian Dental Journal

Self Cite

136

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining teeth in their corrected positions following orthodontic treatment can be extremely challenging. Teeth have a tendency to move back towards the original malocclusion as a result of periodontal, gingival, occlusal and growth related factors. However, tooth movement can also occur as a result of normal age changes. Because orthodontics is unable to predict which patients are at risk of relapse, those which will remain stable and the extent of relapse that will occur in the long-term, clinicians need to treat all patients as if they have a high potential to relapse. To reduce this risk, long term retention is advocated. This can be a significant commitment for patients, and so retention and the potential for relapse must form a key part of the informed consent process prior to orthodontic treatment. It is vital that patients are made fully aware of their responsibilities in committing to wear retainers as prescribed in order to reduce the chance of relapse. If patients are unable or unwilling to comply as prescribed, they must be prepared to accept that there will be tooth positional changes following treatment. There is currently insufficient high quality evidence regarding the best type of retention or retention regimen, and so each clinician's approach will be affected by their personal, clinical experience and expertise, and guided by their patients' expectations and circumstances.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Retainersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention and relapse in clinical practice

Littlewood

Kandasamy

Huang

2017

Australian Dental Journal

Self Cite

136

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most cases of WS are seen in the presence of round, twisted, stainless steel wires [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 23 ], although flat, braided chains are also concerned [ 3 ], as well as single-stranded, round wires bonded only on the canines [ 5 ] and round, coaxial, stainless steel wires [ 22 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moderate severity: The wire is also removed, but orthodontic retreatment is required to correct malposition and to properly reposition the root in the alveolar bone, in order to improve surgical conditions [ 2 , 3 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 20 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Wire Syndrome” Following Bonded Orthodontic Retainers: A Systematic Review of the Literature

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background and objective: Tooth movements described as unexplained, aberrant, unexpected, unwanted, or undesirable can occur in the presence of an intact orthodontic retention wire, without detachment or fracture. This iatrogenic phenomenon, known little or not by many practitioners, responsible for significant dental and periodontal complications, both functional and aesthetic, is called “Wire Syndrome” (WS). It is therefore considered an undesirable event of bonded orthodontic retainers, which must be differentiated from an orthodontic relapse. The objective was to perform, for the first time, a systematic review of the literature in order to define the prevalence of WS and to study its associated clinical characteristics. (2) Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed following the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and recommendations using an electronic search strategy on four databases complemented by a manual search. All the prospective and retrospective clinical studies, including case reports and series, written in English or French, clearly mentioning the description, detection, or management of WS were included. Three independent blinding review authors were involved in study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). (3) Results: Of 1891 results, 20 articles published between 2007 and 2021 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a globally high risk of bias since 16 articles were case report/series. The analysis of each article allowed the highlighting of WS through 13 categories, as follows: prevalence, apparition delay, patient characteristics, arch and tooth involved, families of movements, dental and periodontal consequences, type of wire, risk factors, etiologies, treatment, and preventive approach. (4) Conclusion: This systematic review of the literature elaborated a synthesis on WS, allowing general practitioners, periodontists, and orthodontists to understand this adverse event, to facilitate the diagnostic approach, and to underline preventive measures against WS. This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; number CRD42021269297).

show abstract

“…Another possible explanation for unwanted tooth movements despite bonded retainers could be an iatrogenic activation of the retainer during bonding, as proposed by some authors [ 17 – 19 , 22 , 23 ]. However, in that case, tooth position changes should occur within a few weeks after bonding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D-analysis of unwanted tooth movements despite bonded orthodontic retainers: a pilot study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Recently, reports of unwanted tooth movements despite intact orthodontic bonded retainers have increased. These movements are not subject to relapse but are classified as a new developed malocclusion. The aims of the present pilot study were to analyze the prevalence of unwanted tooth movements despite intact bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainers and to identify possible predisposing factors. Materials and methods Plaster casts of all patients finishing orthodontic treatment during three consecutive years were assessed before treatment (T0), after multibracket appliance debonding (T1) and after two years of retention (T2). After multibracket appliance treatment, all patients received a cuspid-to-cuspid flexible spiral wire retainer bonded to each tooth of the retained segment in the upper and lower jaw. The study group (SG) consisted of 44 patients (16 male, 28 female) with tooth movements (T1–T2) of the retained segment despite intact bonded cuspid-to-cuspid retainer and the control group (CG) of 43 patients (19 male, 24 female) without unwanted tooth movements. The casts of the SG were digitized, superimposed and measured. Using the Chi-square test, Fisher´s exact test and Mann–Whitney-U-test (p < 0.05), mandibular plane angle, incisor proclination, oral dysfunctions or habits (T0) and intercanine distance, overjet and interincisal relationship (T0, T1, T2) were compared between SG and CG. Results The prevalence of patients with unwanted tooth movements in one or both jaws was 27.0%. Maxillary retainers were affected more often (20.9%) than mandibular retainers (14.1%). The median amount of tooth movements was 0 to 0.66 mm with large interindividual variations. Oral dysfunctions or habits at T0, such as a lack of interincisal contact at all time points, were associated with unwanted tooth movements. Conclusion Unwanted tooth movements occurred more often with maxillary than mandibular retainers. Patients with oral dysfunctions/habits and without interincisal contact had a higher prevalence of unwanted tooth movements.

show abstract

A complication with orthodontic fixed retainers: a case report

Cited by 15 publications

References 17 publications

Retention and relapse in clinical practice

Retention and relapse in clinical practice

“Wire Syndrome” Following Bonded Orthodontic Retainers: A Systematic Review of the Literature

3D-analysis of unwanted tooth movements despite bonded orthodontic retainers: a pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About