Retention in Orthodontics: A review

Abstract

Skeletal and dental correction obtained by orthodontic treatment may tend to return to the pre-treatment state. This condition is defined as relapse.  The retention phase applied after treatment is important to obtain stable results.  Periodontium, soft tissue pressures, growth and occlusion are among the factors affecting stability. In the last decade, interest in retention procedures has increased and it has been found that retention regimes differ from country to country. Although retention affects nearly every patient, there is minimal agreement on the most appropriate approach to be taken in an individual case. The many variations of the retention procedure, the introduction of different materials for retention, or individual patient factors are among the reasons that lead to difficulties in selecting retention protocols. Basic retention protocol is provided with removable and fixed retention appliances. For removable retention, hawley, wraparound, vacuum formed retention appliance and positioners are used. For fixed retention, rigid steel retention wire bonded to terminal teeth or flexible retention wires bonded to all teeth between 3-3 can be preferred. NiTi retention wires produced with CAD / CAM technology are also among the current materials. While fixed retention appliances do not require patient cooperation, periodontal follow-up is recommended. Patient cooperation is needed for the use of removable retention appliances, but easy cleaning of removable appliances is an advantage. ‘Adjunct’ procedures may also be applied to the teeth or surrounding periodontium to assist the retention process. For example, it involves reshaping teeth such as interproximal reduction or circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy. In this review, information about retention is discussed in the light of current literature.   How to cite this article: Seki Yurdakul M, Meriç P. Retention in Orthodontics: A review. Int Dent Res 2022;12(2):88-96. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2022.vol12.no2.7   Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.