Clinical oral investigations · 2026
Three-dimensional stability during orthodontic retention: A comparative analysis of conventional, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent fixed retainers versus removable appliances.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Köck Jeannine, Lang Franziska, Niederau Christian, Rizk Marta, Al-Sakati Hannah, Lang Norbert, Wolf Michael, Knaup Isabel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate three-dimensional anterior tooth position changes during orthodontic retention and to compare the effectiveness of three distinct fixed retainer fabrication designs including robotically bent retainers alongside with removable retainers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 113 patients (226 dental arches; mean retention period 1.3 ± 0.6 years). Combined fixed lingual plus removable retention (group 1, n = 148 arches) comprised CAD/CAM Memotain, conventional multistranded stainless-steel (Twistflex), and robotically bent retainers; group 2 (n = 78 arches) received removable retention only. Digital model superimposition using a three-dimensional tooth-specific coordinate system quantified rotational and translational tooth movements, Little's Irregularity Index (LII), transverse arch widths, and bonding failures.
RESULTS: Combined fixed and removable retention showed higher stability than removable-only retention (55% vs. 33% stable arches). Removable retention increased the odds of moderate-to-severe instability (maxilla OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.74-10.98; mandible OR 14.35, 95% CI 3.24-63.56), whereas fixed lingual retention was protective (maxilla OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.58; mandible OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.31). Instability mainly involved canine rotations and vertical translations. Robotically bent and CAD/CAM Memotain retainers showed the lowest movement magnitudes and variability, with minimal LII increases. Intercanine and intermolar widths remained stable across fixed retainers. Bonding failures (25%) strongly predicted severe instability.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional tooth movements during retention mainly involve canine rotations and vertical translations. All fixed retainer designs (Twistflex, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent) provided greater stability than removable-only retention.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All fixed retainer designs require regular monitoring of bonding integrity; digitally fabricated and robotically bent retainers demonstrated marginally lower dimensional variability, which may be clinically relevant over longer observation periods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 113 patients (226 dental arches; mean retention period 1.3 ± 0.6 years). Combined fixed lingual plus removable retention (group 1, n = 148 arches) comprised CAD/CAM Memotain, conventional multistranded stainless-steel (Twistflex), and robotically bent retainers; group 2 (n = 78 arches) received removable retention only. Digital model superimposition using a three-dimensional tooth-specific coordinate system quantified rotational and translational tooth movements, Little's Irregularity Index (LII), transverse arch widths, and bonding failures.
RESULTS: Combined fixed and removable retention showed higher stability than removable-only retention (55% vs. 33% stable arches). Removable retention increased the odds of moderate-to-severe instability (maxilla OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.74-10.98; mandible OR 14.35, 95% CI 3.24-63.56), whereas fixed lingual retention was protective (maxilla OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.58; mandible OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.31). Instability mainly involved canine rotations and vertical translations. Robotically bent and CAD/CAM Memotain retainers showed the lowest movement magnitudes and variability, with minimal LII increases. Intercanine and intermolar widths remained stable across fixed retainers. Bonding failures (25%) strongly predicted severe instability.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional tooth movements during retention mainly involve canine rotations and vertical translations. All fixed retainer designs (Twistflex, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent) provided greater stability than removable-only retention.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All fixed retainer designs require regular monitoring of bonding integrity; digitally fabricated and robotically bent retainers demonstrated marginally lower dimensional variability, which may be clinically relevant over longer observation periods.