PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Orthodontic retention aims to maintain optimal teeth positions after active treatment. The stability is affected by numerous factors, including patients\' individual features, thus retention should be adjusted in the most optimal way. Bonding a retainer makes retention less dependent on patient\'s compliance.
UNASSIGNED: What wire or fiber splint type provides the best treatment stability? What materials should be used to bond the wire or fiber splint? Should be the bonding procedure be direct or indirect? The aim of the study is to assess and synthesize available controlled trials investigating failures of fixed retainers.
METHODS: Literature searches of free text and MeSH terms were performed in Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and PubMed Central in order to find studies, referring to failures of fixed retention (12th February 2021). The keywords were: (\"orthodontic retainers AND failure AND wire\"). The framework of this systematic review according to PICO was: Population: orthodontic patients; Intervention: fixed orthodontic retainer bonding; Comparison: Different protocols of fixed orthodontic retention applied; Outcomes: failure rate, survival rate. Three different specific scales from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook were used, according to each study type. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of retention using fiber reinforced composite and multistranded steel wire.
RESULTS: The search identified 177 potential articles: 114 from PubMed, 41 from Scopus, 20 from Web of Science and 2 from Embase. After excluding studies inconsistent with selection criteria, 21 studies were included and subjected to qualitative analysis. The main outcome investigated was failure rate. This systematic review has some potential limitations due to the heterogeneity of design between included studies.
CONCLUSIONS: No retainer is proved to guarantee a perfect stability of dental alignment. The retainer should be bonded to all adherent teeth, preferably with additional use of bonding resin. No wire or fiber splint present superior characteristics concerning failure rate. Fiber reinforced composite retention is more sensitive to operator skills, and with imperfect bonding technique, failure rate is much higher. During the first 6 months after bonding retainer the patient should be under frequent control. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO database with the number CRD42021233406.
UNASSIGNED: What wire or fiber splint type provides the best treatment stability? What materials should be used to bond the wire or fiber splint? Should be the bonding procedure be direct or indirect? The aim of the study is to assess and synthesize available controlled trials investigating failures of fixed retainers.
METHODS: Literature searches of free text and MeSH terms were performed in Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and PubMed Central in order to find studies, referring to failures of fixed retention (12th February 2021). The keywords were: (\"orthodontic retainers AND failure AND wire\"). The framework of this systematic review according to PICO was: Population: orthodontic patients; Intervention: fixed orthodontic retainer bonding; Comparison: Different protocols of fixed orthodontic retention applied; Outcomes: failure rate, survival rate. Three different specific scales from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook were used, according to each study type. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of retention using fiber reinforced composite and multistranded steel wire.
RESULTS: The search identified 177 potential articles: 114 from PubMed, 41 from Scopus, 20 from Web of Science and 2 from Embase. After excluding studies inconsistent with selection criteria, 21 studies were included and subjected to qualitative analysis. The main outcome investigated was failure rate. This systematic review has some potential limitations due to the heterogeneity of design between included studies.
CONCLUSIONS: No retainer is proved to guarantee a perfect stability of dental alignment. The retainer should be bonded to all adherent teeth, preferably with additional use of bonding resin. No wire or fiber splint present superior characteristics concerning failure rate. Fiber reinforced composite retention is more sensitive to operator skills, and with imperfect bonding technique, failure rate is much higher. During the first 6 months after bonding retainer the patient should be under frequent control. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO database with the number CRD42021233406.
摘要：
背景：正畸保留旨在在积极治疗后保持最佳的牙齿位置。稳定性受多种因素影响,包括患者的个体特征，因此，应以最佳方式调整保留。粘接固位体使固位体更少依赖于患者的依从性。
■哪种类型的电线或纤维夹板能提供最佳的治疗稳定性？应使用哪种材料来粘合电线或纤维夹板？粘合程序应该是直接或间接的？本研究的目的是评估和综合现有的控制试验，调查固定固位器的故障。
方法：在Scopus中进行自由文本和MeSH术语的文献检索，WebofScience,Embase和PubMedCentral为了找到研究，指固定保留失败(2021年2月12日)。关键词是：（“正畸保持器和故障和导线”）。根据PICO进行的系统综述的框架是：人群：正畸患者；干预：固定正畸固位结合；比较：应用不同的固定正畸固位方案；结果：失败率，生存率。使用了Cochrane合作手册中的三种不同的具体量表，根据每个研究类型。此外,进行了一项荟萃分析，以比较使用纤维增强复合材料和多股钢丝的固位效果。
结果：搜索确定了177篇潜在文章：来自PubMed，41来自Scopus，20来自WebofScience，2来自Embase。排除与选择标准不一致的研究后，纳入21项研究并进行定性分析。调查的主要结果是失败率。由于纳入研究之间设计的异质性，本系统综述有一些潜在的局限性。
结论：没有证明固位器能保证牙齿对齐的完美稳定性。固定器应粘合到所有粘附的牙齿上，优选额外使用粘合树脂。没有电线或纤维夹板表现出有关故障率的优越特性。纤维增强复合材料的固位对操作技巧较为敏感，结合技术不完善，故障率要高得多。在粘合固定器后的前6个月中，患者应受到频繁控制。研究方案在PROSPERO数据库中注册，编号为CRD42021233406。
■哪种类型的电线或纤维夹板能提供最佳的治疗稳定性？应使用哪种材料来粘合电线或纤维夹板？粘合程序应该是直接或间接的？本研究的目的是评估和综合现有的控制试验，调查固定固位器的故障。
方法：在Scopus中进行自由文本和MeSH术语的文献检索，WebofScience,Embase和PubMedCentral为了找到研究，指固定保留失败(2021年2月12日)。关键词是：（“正畸保持器和故障和导线”）。根据PICO进行的系统综述的框架是：人群：正畸患者；干预：固定正畸固位结合；比较：应用不同的固定正畸固位方案；结果：失败率，生存率。使用了Cochrane合作手册中的三种不同的具体量表，根据每个研究类型。此外,进行了一项荟萃分析，以比较使用纤维增强复合材料和多股钢丝的固位效果。
结果：搜索确定了177篇潜在文章：来自PubMed，41来自Scopus，20来自WebofScience，2来自Embase。排除与选择标准不一致的研究后，纳入21项研究并进行定性分析。调查的主要结果是失败率。由于纳入研究之间设计的异质性，本系统综述有一些潜在的局限性。
结论：没有证明固位器能保证牙齿对齐的完美稳定性。固定器应粘合到所有粘附的牙齿上，优选额外使用粘合树脂。没有电线或纤维夹板表现出有关故障率的优越特性。纤维增强复合材料的固位对操作技巧较为敏感，结合技术不完善，故障率要高得多。在粘合固定器后的前6个月中，患者应受到频繁控制。研究方案在PROSPERO数据库中注册，编号为CRD42021233406。
