The greatest orthodontist in the world. Great tips Dr Derek. All your videos and tips are so valuable with your experience. As its been said, an hour of your information, its worth years of resources. Thank you so much for this.
Excellent video! As someone who has had to wear a retainer on a couple of different occasions in my life, I would have loved to have had such a great explainer video to help me understand it all.
Love the tips Dr Mahony. Its tips I like to give but watching it makes it much easier for patients to understand. Thanks we need to put more of these up
I have meet Dr Mahony at his clinic after i try to help my daughter in many different places. I recommend Dr Mahony to every mom who wants to help their child. Go there with BIG TRUST!
Maintaining mandibular incisor alignment after orthodontics Avoiding relapse and age-related adverse changes in tooth position after orthodontic treatment is a challenge for clinicians. In a retrospective longitudinal study, researchers examined the dental and skeletal changes in patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances with or without retainers and compared these changes with those in untreated participants. The study was published in the February issue of American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics. A total of 105 patients underwent orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both jaws. Of these patients, 64 (23 boys, 41 girls) received a custom-made lingual mandibular retainer, and 41 (17 boys, 24 girls) did not receive a retainer. The percentage of patients who underwent extractions as part of orthodontic treatment was the same for the retention and nonretention treatment groups. The untreated control group consisted of 25 children (14 boys, 11 girls). At baseline, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants was 12.9 (3.27) years, 12.3 (1.80) years, and 13.4 (1.77) years for the retention, nonretention, and untreated groups, respectively. One investigator conducted all examinations and obtained all measurements. Using a sliding digital caliper, the examiner obtained measurements on dental casts at 4 time points for children in the treatment groups: before treatment (T0), immediately after orthodontic treatment and the start of retention (T1), 6 years after treatment (T2), and 12 years after treatment (T3). The mean (SD) retention time was 2.7 (1.5) years. Patients in both treatment groups also received a removable retainer for the maxillary arch. For participants in the nonretention treatment group, study casts were available at T0, T2, and T3. The examiner also evaluated sagittal and vertical relationships between the jaws and incisor inclination on lateral head radiographs before (T0) and after (T1) orthodontic treatment, as well as 6 and 12 years after treatment. The main outcome measure in this study was mandibular incisor irregularity, as determined by the Little irregularity index (LII) (that is, the summed displacement of the anatomic contact points of the mandibular anterior teeth; scores range from 0 [perfect alignment] through 10 [very severe irregularity]). The study findings showed no significant differences in mandibular incisor irregularity between the retention and nonretention treatment groups 12 years after orthodontic treatment (T3), the authors wrote. However, the researchers observed significant differences between the 2 treatment groups and the untreated control group. At baseline (T0), the mean (SD) LII in children in the untreated group was 1.90 (1.38) compared with 4.59 (3.16) in the retention treatment group and 3.86 (2.88) in the nonretention treatment group. At T3, the LII also was lower in the untreated group (mean [SD], 2.87 [1.79]) than in the retention and nonretention treatment groups (4.26 [2.39] and 4.60 [2.11], respectively). In the 2 treatment groups, mandibular incisor irregularity 12 years after treatment was almost at the same level as that before treatment. In the untreated group, LII increased over time but not to the same extent as that in the treated groups. Thus, use of mandibular retainers for only 2 to 3 years after orthodontic treatment does not appear to prevent long-term relapse and age-related changes, the authors concluded. If a patient wants to constrain natural physiological changes, lifelong retention is required.
Retainer survival time and common causes of failure Retainers play an important role in the long-term success of orthodontic treatment. In a study published in the October 2018 issue of European Journal of Orthodontics, researchers examined the survival times of different types of retainers and investigated the potential predictors of retainer failure. In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, researchers gathered data from the records of patients treated at the University of Otago orthodontic clinic in Otago, New Zealand, from 2003 through 2014. The study sample included 591 retainers from 309 patients (177 females [mean age, 16.3 years] and 132 males [mean age, 16.6 years]). Inclusion criteria were completion of active fixed orthodontic treatment and having been fitted for mandibular or maxillary retainers or both within a week after debonding. All retainers in this study were fabricated in the university’s dental laboratory. Of the 591 retainers, 278 (47%) were stainless steel lingual fixed retainers bonded at the canines (8 maxillary, 270 mandibular), 199 (33.7%) were Hawley retainers (maxillary only), 34 (5.8%) were vacuum-formed retainers (29 maxillary, 5 mandibular), and 80 (13.5%) were combo retainers (a combination of 2 different retainer types in the same arch: 67 maxillary, 13 mandibular). For each retainer, the researchers recorded the year of delivery, survival time, and reasons for failure. They defined failure as any event requiring replacement or repair of the retainer; lost retainers were treated as failures because they could not fulfill their retention role. The researchers performed survival analyses to compare the survival times of the various retainer types. The findings showed that lingual fixed retainers had the longest survival time (median, 1,604 days), followed by Hawley retainers (1,529 days) and vacuum-formed retainers (105 days). The researchers found no statistically significant difference in survival time between the Hawley retainer and lingual fixed retainer groups (P = .526). Furthermore, the retainer survival times did not differ significantly between the maxilla and mandible. The researchers did not observe any statistically significant associations between retainer survival time and patient age, sex, or socioeconomic status (P > .05). They did, however, find an association between survival and time of retainer delivery (P = .01), with earlier delivery being associated with longer survival. Of the 591 retainers, 244 (41.3%) failed during the follow-up period (up to 3,723 days). Hawley retainers were the most likely to have been lost (52%), lingual fixed retainers were the most likely to have debonded (63.5%), and vacuum-formed retainers (43.5%) were the most likely to have experienced fracture. Survival time is an important factor for clinicians to consider when prescribing a retention regimen. To enhance patients’ compliance and minimize failures, the authors advise clinicians to inform their patients of the common causes of failure for each type of retainer.
You are the best orthodontist in the world!
The greatest orthodontist in the world. Great tips Dr Derek. All your videos and tips are so valuable with your experience. As its been said, an hour of your information, its worth years of resources. Thank you so much for this.
A must watch for all dentists. Please share the link with all your associates!
Dr Mahony shares a wealth of information on orthodontics....
What a great explanation in how to use and maintain the retainer! This is a very important part of the Orthodontic treatment... Thank you Dr Mahony
Good information. I had a patient who needed his retainer replaced THREE TIMES because his little puppy chewed them all.
Excellent video! As someone who has had to wear a retainer on a couple of different occasions in my life, I would have loved to have had such a great explainer video to help me understand it all.
Love the tips Dr Mahony. Its tips I like to give but watching it makes it much easier for patients to understand. Thanks we need to put more of these up
We will put it up on our website! Thanks Derek
Great information on retainers, thanks Dr Mahony.
I have meet Dr Mahony at his clinic after i try to help my daughter in many different places. I recommend Dr Mahony to every mom who wants to help their child. Go there with BIG TRUST!
Every course, every movie, every post…. there is so many interesting informations from dr Derek. I love it ;)
Great easy to follow tips Thanks Dr Derek
A wonderful video to watch, excellent advice to help keep the retainer clean and removing that distinctive odour.
It was a pleasure to watch! Really practical tips, I will recommend them to my every patient. Thank you very much!
Very useful tips, thanks
A lot of practical information. Thank you very much
Great tips for our patients as usual from dr. Derek.
Thanks for your very useful and practical teaching :)
Thank you for important and practical tips.
This is what all my patients watch on their retainer issue visit
Good tips,as always from drMahony.
Thanks Derek for this tip!
practical tips indeed. thanks Dr. Derek
Very good. Thanks a lot.
thanks for the very helpful information:)
Thanks a lot! It's verry halpful.
Thanks for the tips! Really useful and helpful for me!
The best advices from the Best!
Incredible tips for patients😷🤓
Good video, thank you
great tips!
Good tip to learn
hi doctor i have a question regarding the hawley retainer,since it has metal wire how long can it soaked in water
The wire is stainless steel and doesn't corrode so ok to soak it when not being worn ie during the day
Maintaining mandibular incisor alignment after orthodontics
Avoiding relapse and age-related adverse changes in tooth position after orthodontic treatment is a challenge for clinicians. In a retrospective longitudinal study, researchers examined the dental and skeletal changes in patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances with or without retainers and compared these changes with those in untreated participants. The study was published in the February issue of American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics.
A total of 105 patients underwent orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in both jaws. Of these patients, 64 (23 boys, 41 girls) received a custom-made lingual mandibular retainer, and 41 (17 boys, 24 girls) did not receive a retainer. The percentage of patients who underwent extractions as part of orthodontic treatment was the same for the retention and nonretention treatment groups. The untreated control group consisted of 25 children (14 boys, 11 girls). At baseline, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants was 12.9 (3.27) years, 12.3 (1.80) years, and 13.4 (1.77) years for the retention, nonretention, and untreated groups, respectively.
One investigator conducted all examinations and obtained all measurements. Using a sliding digital caliper, the examiner obtained measurements on dental casts at 4 time points for children in the treatment groups: before treatment (T0), immediately after orthodontic treatment and the start of retention (T1), 6 years after treatment (T2), and 12 years after treatment (T3). The mean (SD) retention time was 2.7 (1.5) years. Patients in both treatment groups also received a removable retainer for the maxillary arch. For participants in the nonretention treatment group, study casts were available at T0, T2, and T3.
The examiner also evaluated sagittal and vertical relationships between the jaws and incisor inclination on lateral head radiographs before (T0) and after (T1) orthodontic treatment, as well as 6 and 12 years after treatment.
The main outcome measure in this study was mandibular incisor irregularity, as determined by the Little irregularity index (LII) (that is, the summed displacement of the anatomic contact points of the mandibular anterior teeth; scores range from 0 [perfect alignment] through 10 [very severe irregularity]).
The study findings showed no significant differences in mandibular incisor irregularity between the retention and nonretention treatment groups 12 years after orthodontic treatment (T3), the authors wrote. However, the researchers observed significant differences between the 2 treatment groups and the untreated control group. At baseline (T0), the mean (SD) LII in children in the untreated group was 1.90 (1.38) compared with 4.59 (3.16) in the retention treatment group and 3.86 (2.88) in the nonretention treatment group. At T3, the LII also was lower in the untreated group (mean [SD], 2.87 [1.79]) than in the retention and nonretention treatment groups (4.26 [2.39] and 4.60 [2.11], respectively).
In the 2 treatment groups, mandibular incisor irregularity 12 years after treatment was almost at the same level as that before treatment. In the untreated group, LII increased over time but not to the same extent as that in the treated groups. Thus, use of mandibular retainers for only 2 to 3 years after orthodontic treatment does not appear to prevent long-term relapse and age-related changes, the authors concluded. If a patient wants to constrain natural physiological changes, lifelong retention is required.
Retainer survival time and common causes of failure
Retainers play an important role in the long-term success of orthodontic treatment. In a study published in the October 2018 issue of European Journal of Orthodontics, researchers examined the survival times of different types of retainers and investigated the potential predictors of retainer failure.
In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, researchers gathered data from the records of patients treated at the University of Otago orthodontic clinic in Otago, New Zealand, from 2003 through 2014. The study sample included 591 retainers from 309 patients (177 females [mean age, 16.3 years] and 132 males [mean age, 16.6 years]). Inclusion criteria were completion of active fixed orthodontic treatment and having been fitted for mandibular or maxillary retainers or both within a week after debonding. All retainers in this study were fabricated in the university’s dental laboratory.
Of the 591 retainers, 278 (47%) were stainless steel lingual fixed retainers bonded at the canines (8 maxillary, 270 mandibular), 199 (33.7%) were Hawley retainers (maxillary only), 34 (5.8%) were vacuum-formed retainers (29 maxillary, 5 mandibular), and 80 (13.5%) were combo retainers (a combination of 2 different retainer types in the same arch: 67 maxillary, 13 mandibular). For each retainer, the researchers recorded the year of delivery, survival time, and reasons for failure. They defined failure as any event requiring replacement or repair of the retainer; lost retainers were treated as failures because they could not fulfill their retention role.
The researchers performed survival analyses to compare the survival times of the various retainer types. The findings showed that lingual fixed retainers had the longest survival time (median, 1,604 days), followed by Hawley retainers (1,529 days) and vacuum-formed retainers (105 days). The researchers found no statistically significant difference in survival time between the Hawley retainer and lingual fixed retainer groups (P = .526). Furthermore, the retainer survival times did not differ significantly between the maxilla and mandible.
The researchers did not observe any statistically significant associations between retainer survival time and patient age, sex, or socioeconomic status (P > .05). They did, however, find an association between survival and time of retainer delivery (P = .01), with earlier delivery being associated with longer survival.
Of the 591 retainers, 244 (41.3%) failed during the follow-up period (up to 3,723 days). Hawley retainers were the most likely to have been lost (52%), lingual fixed retainers were the most likely to have debonded (63.5%), and vacuum-formed retainers (43.5%) were the most likely to have experienced fracture.
Survival time is an important factor for clinicians to consider when prescribing a retention regimen. To enhance patients’ compliance and minimize failures, the authors advise clinicians to inform their patients of the common causes of failure for each type of retainer.