Review Article
Keywords: Orthodontic retainers; Computer-aided design; Computer-aided manufacturing; Retention
Year : 2024 | Volume : 15 | Issue : 4 | Page : 22-32
Comparison of Memotain Retainers to Conventional Fixed Retainers: A Systematic Review
Vikrant Lambate 1, Priya Manimegalan 2, M. Gunasekaran 3, Arul Prakash Kaveri 3, Shekhar K. Asarsa 4, Sharath Kasturi 5
1Postgraduate Resident, Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Mahatma Gandhi Missions (MGM) Dental College and Hospital, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, 2Consultant Orthodontist, Private Practitioner, Bangalore, 3Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vinayaka Mission's Sankarachariyar Dental College, Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation (DU), Salem, Tamil Nadu, India, 4Tutor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Siddhpur Dental College And Hospital, Dethali, Patan, Gujarat, 5Consultant Orthodontist, Private Practitioner, Nellore.
Address for Correspondence:
Dr Vikrant Lambate,
Postgraduate Resident, Department of Orthodontics,
Mahatma Gandhi Missions (MGM) Dental College and Hospital
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, Indian
Email: vikrantlambate@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Objective: This systematic review assesses and compares the use of fixed retainers manufactured by CAD CAM and conventional methods in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
Methodology: Data from the selected studies were collected using customised data collection forms. Primary analysis involved assessing the stability of orthodontic treatment over time through measurements taken from dental casts and assessing the impact on periodontal health. Secondary aspects involved an evaluation of the rates at which retainers failed and gathered valuable insights from outcomes reported by patients.
Results: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included involving 601 participants. During the initial 6 months, no notable variations in the distance between canine teeth or the length of the dental arch were noted when comparing CAD/CAM retainers with conventional retainers. Nevertheless, it's noteworthy that CAD/CAM retainers exhibited superior performance compared to stainless steel retainers (single strand). Significant differences in Little's irregularity index, was evident at 3-month and 6-month intervals. Distinctions with limited clinical significance were noted in multi-stranded stainless-steel retainers at 6-month follow-up assessment. Regarding oral health aspects, CAD/CAM retainers displayed lower plaque index scores compared to traditional retainers. In terms of durability, most retainers demonstrated comparable failure rates. In one study, CAD/CAM retainers were associated with a greater rate of failure, which resulted in the premature termination of that specific study.
Conclusion: CAD/CAM fixed retainers offer a promising alternative to traditional options and may promote better periodontal health due to lower plaque index scores. Nevertheless, to assess their effectiveness and long-term durability, more studies are needed, particularly regarding failure rates. In the absence of comprehensive evidence, the utilisation of customisation of CAD/CAM retainers is advisable for individual clinical cases.
Keywords: Orthodontic retainers; Computer-aided design; Computer-aided manufacturing; Retention
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
SOURCE OF FUNDING
No source of funding was procured for the study.
How to cite this article: Vikrant Lambate, Priya Manimegalan, M. Gunasekaran, Arul Prakash Kaveri, Shekhar K. Asarsa, Sharath Kasturi. Comparison of Memotain Retainers to Conventional Fixed Retainers: A Systematic Review. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2024; 15 (4) 22-32. Doi: 10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v15i4.1160.