Teeth movement 12 years after orthodontic treatment with and without retainer: relapse or usual changes?

AIMS: To identify if lower incisor movements after orthodontic treatment are due to the relapse of the orthodontic treatment or due to natural growth. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The subjects consisted of 92 patients who have had orthodontic treatment, divided into three groups, group 1: 38 individuals had no retainer in the lower jaw. Group 2: 24 individuals had a retainer 0.028 inch, a spring hard wire bonded to the mandibular canines only. Group 3: 30 individuals had a 0.0195-inch Twist-Flex wire, bonded to all mandibular incisors and canines. Study models before orthodontic treatment (T0), immediately after orthodontic treatment (T1), 6 years after orthodontic treatment (T2), and 12 years after orthodontic treatment (T3) were used for the measurements. The wires in groups 2 and 3 were removed after mean 2.6 years (SD 1.49). Little Irregularity Index (LII), inter-canine distance, available mandibular anterior space, and number of crowded incisors were registered. A Tooth Displacement Index (TDI) was developed to measure the tooth displacement directions at T0 and T3. RESULTS: The LII showed equal values before treatment (T0) and at the follow-up registrations (T2 and T3). But about 25 per cent of the tooth displacements at T2 and T3 did not exist before treatment, at T0. This indicates usual growth changes and not relapse of the orthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION: As about 25 per cent of the displaced incisors can be considered as an effect of natural growth, not a relapse of the orthodontic treatment, it is valuable to use a displacement index in combination with other variables for investigations of stability after orthodontic treatment. Importance of the present study is that it is possible to differ between relapse and usual growth changes.

Mandibular incisor alignment in untreated subjects compared with long-term changes after orthodontic treatment with or without retainers.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work was to analyze the dental and skeletal changes in patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances with or without retention appliances, and to compare the changes with untreated subjects. Specifically, mandibular incisor irregularity was analyzed. METHODS: A total of 105 children who had undergone orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both jaws were examined in 2 groups: 64 had a lingual mandibular retainer and 41 had no retainer. Retention time was 2.7 ± 1.5 years. The untreated group consisted of 25 subjects. Measurements were done on study casts and lateral head radiographs before and after treatment and 6 and 12 years after treatment. The Little irregularity index (LII) was the most important variable. RESULTS: No differences were found in LII 12 years after treatment between the group that had a retainer and the group without a retainer after treatment. In the untreated group, LII was increased over time, but not to the same extent as in the treated groups. Correction of overjet and overbite was stable long-term. At the last examination, the amount of overjet was almost the same in all 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of mandibular retainers for 2 to 3 years does not appear to prevent long-term relapse. If the patient wants to constrain natural development and changes, lifelong retainers are needed.

Twelve-year follow-up of mandibular incisor stability: Comparison between two bonded lingual orthodontic retainers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcome 9 years after removal of two different types of fixed retainers used for stabilization of the mandibular anterior segment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four children who had undergone orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both arches were divided into two groups depending on which kind of retainer being used. Twenty-eight of the patients had a canine-to-canine retainer bonded to the canines and 36 had a bonded twistflex retainer 3-3, bonded to each tooth. Measurements were made on study models and lateral head radiographs, before and after treatment, 6 years after treatment, and 12 years after treatment, with a mean of 9.2 years after removal of the retainers. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two groups at the long-term follow-up according to Little's Irregularity Index or available space for the mandibular incisors. The overjet and overbite were reduced after treatment in both groups and stayed stable throughout the observation period. Also, no differences in bonding failures between the two retainers were found. CONCLUSIONS: Both a canine-to-canine retainer bonded only to the canines and a twistflex retainer 3-3 bonded to each tooth can be recommended. However, neither of the retention types prevented long-term changes of mandibular incisor irregularity or available space for the mandibular incisors after removal of the retainers.

Rapid maxillary expansion effects on nocturnal enuresis in children: a follow-up study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of 10-14 days of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on nocturnal enuresis (NE) in children who have long-standing resistance to medical therapy and to evaluate the long-term success rate after 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three children with NE, aged 6-15 years old (mean age = 10), who wet their bed almost every night and had never been dry were referred from pediatric specialists. Mean RME was 6.5 mm (range = 5-8), but only 7 of the 23 patients had lateral crossbites. Rhinomanometric measurements were taken before and after RME, and patients were interviewed 10 years after treatment. RESULTS: Positive effects of RME were observed in nearly 50% of the patients within 1 month of treatment: six were completely dry and five had notable improvements. Relapse in the overexpanded arches to a normal transversal occlusion was noted within 1 year. No correlation was found between success and improved airways, familial heritage, school performance, or other social factors. Younger children responded better to the treatment. Results were stable at the 10-year follow-up, and no adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSION: Orthodontic RME is a new option for treating children with NE who are resistant to medical therapy; the treatment has no adverse side effects.

Long-term follow-up of orthodontically treated deep bite patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term stability of corrected deep bite and mandibular anterior crowding in a sample of 62 subjects (30 patients and 32 controls). The patients began treatment at a mean age of 12.2 years (SD 1.56). The treatment consisted of non-extraction and fixed appliances in 23 subjects and functional appliances in seven. The treatment group was compared with the control group with normal molar occlusion, normal overjet and overbite, no crowding, and without an orthodontic treatment need. The registrations were made on four occasions: before treatment (T1), after treatment (T2), and at two long-term follow-ups (T3 and T4). Four registrations were also made in the control group. All measurements were undertaken on plaster models and lateral cephalograms. Treatment was found to have normalized the overbite and overjet and to have eliminated the space deficiency in the mandibular anterior region. At T4, there was a minor relapse in overbite in the treatment group (mean 0.8 mm). In the control group, the overbite underwent reverse development (bite opening by 0.7 mm) during the same period. The available mandibular incisor space, however, was -0.9 mm in the treatment group and -1.8 mm in the control group. The long-term stability of the treatment results was thus good.