Does quality of orthodontic treatment outcome influence post‐treatment stability? A retrospective study investigating short‐term stability 2 years after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and in the presence of fixed retainers

Gera, Arwa; Gera, Shadi; Cattaneo, Paolo M.; Cornelis, Marie A.

doi:10.1111/ocr.12545

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pancherz sieht in einer stabilen posttherapeutischen Interkuspidation den Schlüssel zu einem stabilen Behandlungsergebnis [5]. Ein objektiv gutes kieferorthopädisches Therapieresultat stellt auch nach Gera et al ein Stabilitätskriterium dar [44]. Bezüglich der Stabilität post Therapie mit dem Herbstscharnier muss beachtet werden, dass nach einer Retentionsphase die skelettalen Effekte langfristig kaum noch nachweisbar sind, die Okklusion jedoch relativ stabil bleibt [11].…”

Section: Stabilitätunclassified

Mitarbeitsunabhängige Klasse II Therapie mit der Herbstapparatur – Ein Überblick

Schmid,

Hohoff

2024

Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDie Therapie der Angle Klasse II gehört zu den häufigsten kieferorthopädischen Behandlungsaufgaben. Befundabhängig stehen verschiedene Therapieoptionen zur Verfügung, unter anderem eine Behandlung mittels Herbstapparatur, die im permanenten Gebiss - auf oder nach dem Wachstumsgipfel - besonders effektiv ist. Die Kombination mit vollständig individuellen lingualen Multibracketapparaturen kann mögliche Nebenwirkungen des Herbstscharniers reduzieren. Ziel dieses Artikels ist ein Literaturüberblick zum Thema Therapie mittels Herbstapparatur und die Veranschaulichung der Methode anhand von Fallbeispielen.

show abstract

Section: Stabilitätunclassified

Mitarbeitsunabhängige Klasse II Therapie mit der Herbstapparatur – Ein Überblick

Schmid,

Hohoff

2024

Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, differences in lower incisor inclination were statistically significant. Gera et al [36] conducted a retrospective study and found that stability was good two years after orthodontic treatment, with less than 2% experiencing undesirable changes. Dalya Al-Moghrabi et al [1] found that fixed retainers were more effective than vacuum-formed retainers in maintaining mandibular anterior segment alignment at a 4-year follow-up.…”

Section: Bonded Retainers Versus Removable Retention Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthodontic Relapse after Fixed or Removable Retention Devices: A Systematic Review

Inchingolo,

Ceci

et al. 2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retention constitutes a fundamental phase of orthodontic treatment, of which the patient must be made aware from the outset. Retention, which can be fixed or movable, has the task of maintaining over time and stabilising the results obtained during treatment. This study assessed the efficacy of using removable restraints versus fixed solutions for maintaining long-term outcomes. A comprehensive search across major databases—Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus—used ‘relapse’ and ‘orthodontic’ as keywords to gather articles on relapse discussions. The primary focus was relapsed cases in post-fixed orthodontic therapy. Both fixed and removable retainer systems prove effective in preserving orthodontic achievements. While fixed devices require regular wire integrity checks, mobile devices require patient compliance, proper usage, and a recommended wear time. Studies indicate that fixed retainers are generally successful, with relapse rates varying based on the retainer type. Full-time use of removable devices surpasses night-only wear. Vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers offer similar effectiveness. Fixed retainers excel in long-term alignment stability, whereas removable ones have higher failure rates yet remain beneficial.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, it has been shown by some authors that long-term stability is correlated to the quality of the orthodontic treatment outcome [13,14]. If the quality of treatment outcome is indeed influencing the long-term stability favorably, it would be of interest to study a sample selected for its high-quality end-of-treatment outcome as it will likely evolve differently in time compared to an average sample.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Striving for Perfection: How Stable Is Orthodontic Treatment When Excellent Outcomes Are Achieved? A 9-Year Post-Treatment Retrospective Study

Cornelis,

Gera,

Gera

et al. 2023

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Aims: The main objective of this retrospective study was to assess the long-term stability of difficult orthodontic treatments treated to an excellent result and to correlate stability to possible prognostic factors. Secondary objectives were to observe the changes in retention protocol over time and to assess Oral Health-related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) after a long-term post-treatment follow-up. (2) Methods: Cases presented for final examination by orthodontic postgraduate students were retrospectively screened for eligibility. Eligible patients were recalled for a post-treatment recall appointment (T2), consisting of a clinical examination and intraoral scan, and were asked to complete the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14-DK). Gender, age at treatment commencement (T0), treatment modality and duration, and retention protocol were extracted from the records. At T2, the duration of the retention period was recorded, and retainers in place were clinically compared to the original retention protocol. The following variables were assessed on the sets of models at T0, T1 (end of treatment), and T2: arch length and width, overjet and overbite, Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI), Peer Assessment Rating score (PAR), and Little’s Irregularity Index (LII). Multiple regression models were conducted. (3) Results: Eighty-five subjects attended T2. The mean post-treatment follow-up was 9.4 years +/− 2.4. In the upper arch, at T1, 74 patients had a combination of fixed and removable retainers, while at T2, 55 had a fixed retainer only. In the lower arch, at T1, 67 patients had a fixed retainer only, with this number increasing to 76 at T2. From T0 to T1, the PAR score improved by 96.1%, with the improvement remaining at 77.5% at T2. The stability of lower inter-canine and upper inter-premolar widths was significantly correlated with the extent of changes during treatment. The presence of a lower fixed retainer at T2 and a low LII at T1 were prognostic factors for stability. The mean weighted total OHIP-14 score at T2 was very low (1.6 ± 2.4 points). (4) Conclusions: In a sample with an initial high-severity malocclusion and treated to an excellent outcome, long-term stability was very good. Good stability can be retained when a lower fixed retainer is present at T2 and when a low LII is achieved at T1.

show abstract

Does quality of orthodontic treatment outcome influence post‐treatment stability? A retrospective study investigating short‐term stability 2 years after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and in the presence of fixed retainers

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Mitarbeitsunabhängige Klasse II Therapie mit der Herbstapparatur – Ein Überblick

Mitarbeitsunabhängige Klasse II Therapie mit der Herbstapparatur – Ein Überblick

Orthodontic Relapse after Fixed or Removable Retention Devices: A Systematic Review

Striving for Perfection: How Stable Is Orthodontic Treatment When Excellent Outcomes Are Achieved? A 9-Year Post-Treatment Retrospective Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About