Evaluation of the effects of different lingual retainer materials on post-treatment stability

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effects of different lingual retainers on mandibular anterior tooth stability one-year follow-up period. Materials and methods A total of 140 patients who had undergone non-extraction orthodontic treatment were included in the investigation. For lower incisor retention, Group 1 received a bonded 0.0175-inch seven-strand stainless steel wire (Ortho Technology, Tampa, FL, USA), Group 2 received a 0.022 × 0.016-inch eight-strand dead-soft wire (Bond-A-Braid, Reliance Orthodontic Products, IL, USA), Group 3 received a 0.038 × 0.016-inch prefabricated stainless steel wire (Ortho FlexTech®, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, IL, USA), and Group 4 received a fibre-reinforced composite wire (StickTech, Turku, Finland). Tooth stability was assessed using Little’s Irregularity Index, intercanine width, and arch length measurements taken at five different time points. Results After one year, changes in Little’s Irregularity Index were statistically greater in Groups 2 and 4 than in Groups 1 and 3. Reductions in intercanine width were also significantly greater in Groups 2 and 4. No significant differences in arch length changes were found between the groups. Wire breakages were statistically more frequent in Group 4, and bonding failures were higher in Group 2. Using a 0.0175-inch seven-strand stainless steel wire or a 0.038 × 0.016-inch prefabricated stainless steel wire for lingual retainers is recommended. Conclusion Stainless steel retainers are recommended for 1-year stability due to their durability and lower failure rate, whereas fibre-reinforced composite retainers may be less reliable.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australasian Orthodontic Journal
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2025-0022
Primary Topic
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of the effects of different lingual retainer materials on post-treatment stability

Metin Nur, Yildirim Mucahid
Australasian Orthodontic Journal
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

Evaluation of the effects of different lingual retainer materials on post-treatment stability

Metin Nur, Yildirim Mucahid
article en

Abstract

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effects of different lingual retainers on mandibular anterior tooth stability one-year follow-up period. Materials and methods A total of 140 patients who had undergone non-extraction orthodontic treatment were included in the investigation. For lower incisor retention, Group 1 received a bonded 0.0175-inch seven-strand stainless steel wire (Ortho Technology, Tampa, FL, USA), Group 2 received a 0.022 × 0.016-inch eight-strand dead-soft wire (Bond-A-Braid, Reliance Orthodontic Products, IL, USA), Group 3 received a 0.038 × 0.016-inch prefabricated stainless steel wire (Ortho FlexTech®, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, IL, USA), and Group 4 received a fibre-reinforced composite wire (StickTech, Turku, Finland). Tooth stability was assessed using Little’s Irregularity Index, intercanine width, and arch length measurements taken at five different time points. Results After one year, changes in Little’s Irregularity Index were statistically greater in Groups 2 and 4 than in Groups 1 and 3. Reductions in intercanine width were also significantly greater in Groups 2 and 4. No significant differences in arch length changes were found between the groups. Wire breakages were statistically more frequent in Group 4, and bonding failures were higher in Group 2. Using a 0.0175-inch seven-strand stainless steel wire or a 0.038 × 0.016-inch prefabricated stainless steel wire for lingual retainers is recommended. Conclusion Stainless steel retainers are recommended for 1-year stability due to their durability and lower failure rate, whereas fibre-reinforced composite retainers may be less reliable.

Australasian Orthodontic JournalVol. 41(1)
Necmettin Erbakan University (TR), Konya Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 84%
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.