Purpose: The objective of the present systematic review (SR) was to compare available retainers to determine which one has the highest probability of maintaining a stable post-orthodontic outcome. Methods: Electronic platforms were searched up to 20 January 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of different retainers in stabilizing post-orthodontic tooth position (PROSPERO no. CRD42023399604). The Cochrane checklist was used for risk of bias assessment. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted for the Little irregularity index (LII), intercanine width (ICW), and intermolar width (IMW) to identify metric ranking markers (highest probability of being the best [PBB], surface under the cumulative ranking curves [SUCRA], and mean ranking [MR]) for the different retention protocols. Results: Eighteen RCTs were included in the SR, and 15 in the NMA. Seven studies were at high risk of bias, 7 at moderate, and 4 at low risk of bias. The retainers were categorized into 14 groups for analyzing LII, 13 for ICW, and 8 for IMW. The NMA on LII indicated that computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) multistrand stainless steel (SS), followed by laboratory round multistrand SS and rectangular flex SS retainers had the highest PBB in maintaining a low LII. The NMA on ICW suggested that CAD/CAM multistrand SS followed by CAD/CAM NiTi and spring hard SS retainers have the highest PBB in maintaining ICW. Very limited evidence showed a low PBB for removable retainers related to LII and ICW. No difference between groups was observed for IMW. Conclusion: There is moderate-to-low quality evidence that CAD/CAM and laboratory-bent multistrand SS followed by rectangular flex SS retainers might be the most effective retention protocol for maintaining a low LII over a short-to-mid-term follow-up, whereas CAD/CAM multistrand SS, CAD/CAM NiTi, and spring-hard wire retainers might be most effective in maintaining ICW. Intermolar width tends to decrease, but this does not seem to be influenced by the type of retention.
Which orthodontic retainer provides the best stabilization? : Systematic review and network meta-analysis / Z. Kalemaj, E. Boccalari, M. Tremolati, G.M. Tartaglia, A. Caprioglio. - In: JOURNAL OF OROFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS. - ISSN 1615-6714. - (2025). [10.1007/s00056-025-00623-9]
Which orthodontic retainer provides the best stabilization? : Systematic review and network meta-analysis
Z. Kalemaj
Primo
;E. Boccalari;M. Tremolati;G.M. Tartaglia;A. CaprioglioUltimo
2025
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of the present systematic review (SR) was to compare available retainers to determine which one has the highest probability of maintaining a stable post-orthodontic outcome. Methods: Electronic platforms were searched up to 20 January 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of different retainers in stabilizing post-orthodontic tooth position (PROSPERO no. CRD42023399604). The Cochrane checklist was used for risk of bias assessment. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted for the Little irregularity index (LII), intercanine width (ICW), and intermolar width (IMW) to identify metric ranking markers (highest probability of being the best [PBB], surface under the cumulative ranking curves [SUCRA], and mean ranking [MR]) for the different retention protocols. Results: Eighteen RCTs were included in the SR, and 15 in the NMA. Seven studies were at high risk of bias, 7 at moderate, and 4 at low risk of bias. The retainers were categorized into 14 groups for analyzing LII, 13 for ICW, and 8 for IMW. The NMA on LII indicated that computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) multistrand stainless steel (SS), followed by laboratory round multistrand SS and rectangular flex SS retainers had the highest PBB in maintaining a low LII. The NMA on ICW suggested that CAD/CAM multistrand SS followed by CAD/CAM NiTi and spring hard SS retainers have the highest PBB in maintaining ICW. Very limited evidence showed a low PBB for removable retainers related to LII and ICW. No difference between groups was observed for IMW. Conclusion: There is moderate-to-low quality evidence that CAD/CAM and laboratory-bent multistrand SS followed by rectangular flex SS retainers might be the most effective retention protocol for maintaining a low LII over a short-to-mid-term follow-up, whereas CAD/CAM multistrand SS, CAD/CAM NiTi, and spring-hard wire retainers might be most effective in maintaining ICW. Intermolar width tends to decrease, but this does not seem to be influenced by the type of retention.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Which orthodontic retainer provides the best stabilization.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Licenza:
Nessuna licenza
Dimensione
3.07 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
3.07 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.




