Comparison of two types of fixed lingual retainers in maxillary arch for retainer failures in post-orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial

Purpose Retention, a critical phase following orthodontic treatment maintains dental alignments after active treatment ceases. Fixed retainers offer a compliance-free solution, but limited evidence compares modern systems such as connected bonding pads (CBP) and titanium lingual wires (TW). This study was designed to evaluate and compare these retainers for debonding rate and frequency, post-treatment stability, periodontal health, and patient discomfort.Materials and Methods Forty patients (aged:18–25) post-orthodontic treatment were randomly assigned either CBP or TW retainers bonded to six maxillary anterior teeth. Debonding rate and frequency was scored (0–5), post-treatment stability was assessed using modified Little’s Irregularity Index (LII) and periodontal health via Gingival index, Plaque index and Russell’s periodontal index at baseline(T0), 1-month(T1), 3-month(T3) and 6-month(T6) visits and patient-reported discomfort was recorded at T1 using 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS). Intragroup comparisons used repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman’s test, and inter-group comparisons used independent t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests (p = 0.05).Results Debonding rates and frequencies showed no significant intra- or inter-group differences across time points (p > 0.05). The odds of failure for CBP retainers were 1.79 times higher than TW retainers. Both groups exhibited significant increases in LII over time (CBP:p < 0.001; TW:p = 0.001), but intergroup differences remained non-significant. Periodontal indices improved significantly, while plaque indices increased slightly(p < 0.05). Patient discomfort scores were comparable across groups.Conclusion Overall, both retainers performed similarly across key metrics, but TW retainers showed advantages like lesser chances for debonding and long-term post-treatment stability making them a promising option for orthodontic retention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical and Investigative Orthodontics
Published
2026-03-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/27705781.2026.2640774
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

Comparison of two types of fixed lingual retainers in maxillary arch for retainer failures in post-orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial

Javed Sodawala, Jyoti Panjwani, Tanusha Mahobia, Piyush Khandelwal et al.
Clinical and Investigative Orthodontics
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

Comparison of two types of fixed lingual retainers in maxillary arch for retainer failures in post-orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial

Javed Sodawala, Jyoti Panjwani, Tanusha Mahobia, Piyush Khandelwal, Sonam Parakh, Chinmayee Chaulwar
article en

Abstract

Purpose Retention, a critical phase following orthodontic treatment maintains dental alignments after active treatment ceases. Fixed retainers offer a compliance-free solution, but limited evidence compares modern systems such as connected bonding pads (CBP) and titanium lingual wires (TW). This study was designed to evaluate and compare these retainers for debonding rate and frequency, post-treatment stability, periodontal health, and patient discomfort.Materials and Methods Forty patients (aged:18–25) post-orthodontic treatment were randomly assigned either CBP or TW retainers bonded to six maxillary anterior teeth. Debonding rate and frequency was scored (0–5), post-treatment stability was assessed using modified Little’s Irregularity Index (LII) and periodontal health via Gingival index, Plaque index and Russell’s periodontal index at baseline(T0), 1-month(T1), 3-month(T3) and 6-month(T6) visits and patient-reported discomfort was recorded at T1 using 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS). Intragroup comparisons used repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman’s test, and inter-group comparisons used independent t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests (p = 0.05).Results Debonding rates and frequencies showed no significant intra- or inter-group differences across time points (p > 0.05). The odds of failure for CBP retainers were 1.79 times higher than TW retainers. Both groups exhibited significant increases in LII over time (CBP:p < 0.001; TW:p = 0.001), but intergroup differences remained non-significant. Periodontal indices improved significantly, while plaque indices increased slightly(p < 0.05). Patient discomfort scores were comparable across groups.Conclusion Overall, both retainers performed similarly across key metrics, but TW retainers showed advantages like lesser chances for debonding and long-term post-treatment stability making them a promising option for orthodontic retention.

Clinical and Investigative Orthodontics
Chhattisgarh Dental College & Research Institute (IN)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
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.