Dentist № 3 (58) – 2025, pp. 52-60                                                                                                                        SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION

Clinical effectiveness of the retention stage of orthodontic treatment using removable and non-removable retention devices

S.P. Rubnikovicha, A.S. Grishchenkovb,  Yu.L. Denisovaa, E.V. Kuzmenkob, K.O. Serzhaninac, A.D. Klimentievc, E.S. Garbusc

aMD, PhD, DMSci, Professor, Belarusian State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus
bMD, PhD, Associate professor, Belarusian State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus
cBelarusian State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus

https://doi.org/10.32993/dentist.2025.3(58).6

ABSTRACT
The completion of the active phase of orthodontic treatment is invariably followed by the retention period. The goal of retention is to prevent relapse of orthodontic pathology and maintain the optimal aesthetic and functional status of the dentoalveolar system achieved during the previous therapy. In the context of the longterm stability of orthodontic treatment results, retention is considered not simply as a final procedure, but as an integral element that determines the success of the entire therapeutic complex and ensures the maintenance of the achieved functional and aesthetic balance of the dentoalveolar system.
The aim of the study. To study the clinical effectiveness of the retention phase of orthodontic treatment using removable and fixed retainers, and to develop an optimized algorithm for the fabrication and fixation of retainers. Objects and methods. The research focused on the following: scientific literature, including contemporary articles and reviews dedicated to the topic of retention in orthodontics; and clinical procedure protocols, specifically the protocol for bonding a fixed retainer and the algorithm for fabricating a removable retention appliance.
Objects and methods. The resistance of fillings to mechanical impact and bonding strength at the filling-post interface were evaluated on tooth slides. The efficacy of parapulpal restorations for patients with tooth erosion was evaluated on 220 teeth. The integrity of the restorations was determined after 12-18 months of use.
Results and discussion. The data obtained suggest a pronounced correlation between the severity of the initial orthodontic pathology and the effectiveness and longevity (survival rate) of the retention appliances used. Consequently, the selection of the optimal retention technique in modern orthodontic practice should be based on a comprehensive assessment of the clinical situation and take into account the complexity of the initial dentoalveolar anomaly.
Conclusion.  Based on clinical protocols, it is recommended to develop individualized treatment plans for anomalies and deformities of the dentoalveolar system, including the selection of appropriate retention appliances, as this has a significant impact on the long-term stability of the achieved orthodontic treatment results.

Keywords: Retention, orthodontic treatment, retention appliances, relapse, stabilization of results

References

  1. Rubnikovich S.P., Grishchenkov A.S., Denisova Yu.L. Klinicheskij fotoprotokol kak resurs diagnostiki i dinamicheskogo nablyudeniya pri lechenii pacientov s parafunkciyami zhevatel’nyh myshc, oslozhnennymi funkcional’nymi rasstrojstvami VNCHS [Clinical photoprotocol as a resource of diagnostics and dynamic observation in the treatment of patients with masticatory muscle parafunctions complicated by TMJ functional disorders]. Stomatolog. Minsk. – Dentist. Minsk. 2019, № 3 (34), pp. 40–45.
  2. Rubnikovich S.P., Grishchenkov A.S. Obosnovanie differencirovannogo psihologicheskogo podhoda v mezhdisciplinarnoj reabilitacii pacientov s funkcional’nymi rasstrojstvami visochno-nizhnechelyustnyh sustavov [Substantiation of differentiated psychological approach in interdisciplinary rehabilitation of patients with functional disorders of temporomandibular joints]. Stomatologiya. Estetika. Innovacii. – Stomatology. Aesthetics. Innovations. 2018, № 2 (2), pp. 208–220.
  3. Rubnikovich S.P., Denisova Yu.L., Kuzmenko E.V., Andreeva V.A., Timchuk Ya.I., Shejda A.V. Rasprostranennost’ zubochelyustnykh anomalii i deformatsii sredi detei Brestskoi oblasti, obrativshikhsya za stomatologicheskoi pomoshch’yu [Prevalence of dentoalveolar anomalies and deformities among children of the Brest region sought for dental care]. Stomatolog. Minsk. – Dentist. Minsk. 2019, no. 4 (35), pp. 8–13.
  4. Rubnikovich S.P. Kuzmenko E.V., Denisova Yu. L., Boginsky O. Yu., Andreeva V.A., Timchuk Ya.I. Rasprostranennost` zubochelyustny`kh anomalij i deformaczij sredi naseleniya shkol`nogo vozrasta g. Vitebska [The prevalence of dentoalveolar anomalies and deformities among the school age population of Vitebsk]. Stomatolog. Minsk. – Dentist. Minsk. 2018, no. 4 (31), pp. 39–43.
  5. Rubnikovich S.P., Grishchenkov A.S., Denisova Yu.L. Sovremennye metody ortopedicheskogo lecheniya v kompleksnoj reabilitacii pacientov s myshechno-sustavnymi disfunkciyami v sochetanii s priznakami bruksizma [Modern methods of orthopedic treatment in complex rehabilitation of patients with musculoskeletal dysfunctions in combination with signs of bruxism]. Stomatolog. Minsk. – Dentist. Minsk. 2020, № 2 (37), pp. 55–63.
  6. Ashari A., Mukhriz N., Yuen J.J.X. A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial. Progress in orthodontics. 2022, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 40.
  7. Bellini-Pereira S.A., Aliaga-Del Castillo A. Treatment stability with bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. European journal of orthodontics. 2022, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 187-196.
  8. Consolaro A., Cardoso M.A. Mandibular anterior crowding: normal or pathological? Dental Press J Orthod. 2018, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 30-36.
  9. Dogramaci E.J., Littlewood S.J. Removable orthodontic retainers: practical considerations. British Dental Journal. 2021, vol. 230, no. 11, pp. 723–730.
  10. Kartal Y., Kaya B. Fixed Orthodontic Retainers: A Review. Turk J Orthod. 2019, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 110-114.
  11. Krämer A., Sjöström M., Hallman M., Feldmann I. Vacuum-formed retainer versus bonded retainer for dental stabilization in the mandible–a randomized controlled trial. Part I: retentive capacity 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2020, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 551–558.
  12. Kravitz N.D., Grauer D., Schumacher P., Jo Y.M. Memotain: A CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 812-815.
  13. Littlewood S.J., Millett D.T., Doubleday B., Bearn D.R., Worthington H.V. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016, vol. 2016, no. 1, pp. CD002283.
  14. Sonesson M., Naraghi S., Bondemark L. Cost analysis of two types of fixed maxillary retainers and a removable vacuum-formed maxillary retainer: a randomized controlled trial. European journal of orthodontics. 2022, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 197-202.
  15. Wegrodzka E., Kornatowska K., Pandis N. A comparative assessment of failures and periodontal health between 2 mandibular lingual retainers in orthodontic patients. A 2-year follow-up, single practice-based randomized trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2021, vol. 160, no. 4, pp. 494-502.e1.
  16. Zachrisson B.U. Multistranded wire bonded retainers: from start to success. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015, vol. 148, no. 5, pp. 724-728.

Correspondence to:  E-mail: rubnikovichs@mail.ru