Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Feb;149(2):202-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.035.

Unexpected complications associated with mandibular fixed retainers: A retrospective study.

Author information

1
Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, First Medical Faculty of Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics, Clinic of Dental Medicine, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
2
Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, Clinic of Dental Medicine, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic; consultant orthodontist, Department of Orthodontics, First Medical Faculty of Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: ortho.marek@email.cz.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

The purposes of this retrospective study were to describe the types of unexpected complications associated with mandibular fixed retainers and to assess their prevalences and possible etiologic causes.

METHODS:

A total of 3500 consecutive patients (1423 male, 2077 female) treated with fixed appliances and a mandibular fixed retainer as a part of the retention protocol were screened during the retention period (2008-2013) for unexpected complications. Thirty-eight subjects (12 male, 26 female; mean age, 20.7 ± 8.9 years) with unexpected complications were identified and assigned to the unexpected complications group and compared with a randomly selected control group of 105 subjects (43 men, 62 women; mean age, 29.5 ± 9.7 years) without unexpected complications. Relationships between unexpected complications and cephalometric and clinical variables were evaluated.

RESULTS:

An opposite inclination of the contralateral canines (twist effect) was found in 21 subjects. In 89.5%, the left canines were tipped buccally. A torque difference of 2 adjacent incisors (X effect) was identified in 12 patients. In 5 subjects, nonspecific complications were noted. Subjects in the unexpected complications group were significantly younger at debonding (P = 0.03) and had higher mandibular plane angles (P <0.0001) and increased pretreatment ventral positions of the mandibular incisors (P = 0.029). No differences were found between the groups with regard to treatment duration, wire type, failure rate, treatment changes in incisor proclination, or intercanine distance.

CONCLUSIONS:

Unexpected complications of mandibular fixed retainers are relatively rare. Facial divergence was identified as a possible predictor. However, the etiology is most likely multifactorial. Strong asymmetry among the patients with the twist effect suggests that the mechanical properties of retention wires may play a role and should be examined in the future.

PMID:
26827976
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.035
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center