Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • General
  • Published:

Orthodontic retention protocols: an evidence-based overview

British Dental Journal volume 230, pages 770–776 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

In view of the diversity of orthodontic presentations, a single optimal retention protocol does not exist, with approaches tailored based on pre-treatment characteristics, treatment-induced changes and general patient characteristics. However, orthodontic practitioners should be responsive to the best available evidence to formulate optimal retention protocols in terms of appliance type, design and regimen, in particular. Based on a comprehensive search strategy, we discuss fundamental aspects concerning orthodontic retention of particular interest both to orthodontists and general dentists. These include stability and periodontal outcomes, cost-effectiveness, patient experiences, survival and failure rates of retainers, and the duration of retention.

Key points

  • Prescription of prolonged retention following orthodontics is essentially routine, with part-time wear of removable retainers as effective as full-time wear.

  • Little or no detrimental change to the periodontal health is observed with orthodontic retainers in the short-term or the long-term, except in rare circumstances where inherent activity in the bonded retainer in situ can lead to unwanted tooth movement.

  • Fixed and removable retainers show similar effectiveness in maintaining stability outcomes in the short term; however, superior preservation of alignment may be observed with the former in the longer term.

  • The combined use of both fixed and removable retainers is widely prescribed; however, little is known about the additional benefit over the use of either type in isolation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Madhavji A, Araujo E A, Kim K B, Buschang P H. Attitudes, awareness, and barriers toward evidence-based practice in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.05.023.

  2. Vandevska-Radunovic V, Espeland L, Stenvik A. Retention: Type, duration and need for common guidelines. A survey of Norwegian orthodontists. Orthodontics (Chic.) 2013; DOI: 10.11607/ortho.964.

  3. Padmos J A, Fudalej P S, Renkema A M. Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153: 496-504.

  4. Lai Heuberger C, Grossen J, Renkema A-M, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej P, Katsaros C. Orthodontic retention procedures in Switzerland. Swiss Dent J 2014; 124: 655-661.

  5. Singh P, Grammati S, Kirschen R. Orthodontic retention patterns in the United Kingdom. J Orthod 2009; 36: 115-121.

  6. Pratt M C, Kluemper G T, Hartsfield Jr J K, Fardo D, Nash D A. Evaluation of retention protocols among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 520-526.

  7. Al-Jewair T S, Hamidaddin M A, Alotaibi H M et al. Retention practices and factors affecting retainer choice among orthodontists in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 2016; 37: 895-901.

  8. Meade M J, Dreyer C W. A survey of retention and retainer practices of orthodontists in Australia. Aust Orthod J 2019; 35: 174.

  9. Little R M, Riedel R A, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 93: 423-428.

  10. Horowitz S L, Hixon E H. Physiologic recovery following orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1969; 55: 1-4.

  11. Al-Moghrabi D, Johal A, O'Rourke N et al. Effects of fixed vs removable orthodontic retainers on stability and periodontal health: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.01.007.

  12. Littlewood S J, Millett D T, Doubleday B, Bearn D R, Worthington H V. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002283.pub4.

  13. Gill D S, Naini F B, Jones A, Tredwin C J. Part-time versus full-time retainer wear following fixed appliance therapy: a randomized prospective controlled trial. World J Orthod 2007; 8: 300-306.

  14. Thickett E, Power S. A randomized clinical trial of thermoplastic retainer wear. Eur J Orthod 2009; 32: 1-5.

  15. Shawesh M, Bhatti B, Usmani T, Mandall N. Hawley retainers full-or part-time? A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 2009; 32: 165-170.

  16. Rohaya M, Shahrul Hisham Z, Doubleday B. Randomised Clinical Trial: Comparing the Efficacy of Vacuum-formed and Hawley Retainers in Retaining corrected tooth rotations. Malay Dent J 2006; 27: 38-44.

  17. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A et al. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a single-centre randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 730-737.

  18. Hichens L, Rowland H, Williams A et al. Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction: Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29: 372-378.

  19. Sun J, Yu Y, Liu M et al. Survival time comparison between Hawley and clear overlay retainers: a randomized trial. J Dent Res 2011; 90: 1197-1201.

  20. Atik E, Esen Aydınlı F, Kulak Kayıkçı M E, Ciğer S. Comparing the effects of Essix and Hawley retainers on the acoustics of speech. Eur J Orhod 2017; 39: 440-445.

  21. Saleh M, Hajeer M Y, Muessig D. Acceptability comparison between Hawley retainers and vacuum-formed retainers in orthodontic adult patients: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2017; 39: 453-461.

  22. Wan J, Wang T, Pei X, Wan Q, Feng W, Chen J. Speech effects of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers by acoustic analysis: A single-centre randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 2017; 87: 286-292.

  23. Manzon L, Fratto G, Rossi E, Buccheri A. Periodontal health and compliance: A comparison between Essix and Hawley retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153: 852-860.

  24. Moslemzadeh S, Sohrabi A, Rafighi A, Farshidnia S. Comparison of Stability of the Results of Orthodontic Treatment and Gingival Health between Hawley and Vacuum-formed Retainers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19: 443-449.

  25. Vagdouti G, Karvouni E, Bitsanis E, Koletsi D. Objective evaluation of compliance after orthodontic treatment using Hawley or vacuum-formed retainers: A 2-centre randomized controlled trial over a 3-month period. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.07.008.

  26. Alkan Ö, Kaya Y, Keskin S. Computerized occlusal analysis of Essix and Hawley retainers used during the retention phase: a controlled clinical trial. J Orofac Orthop 2020; 81: 371-381.

  27. Xian L, Ashari A, Mohamed A M et al. Relapse in Modified Vacuum-Formed and Hawley Retainers for Transverse Expansion A Multicentre Randomized Control Trial. J Int Dent Med Res 2020; 13: 614-621.

  28. Sauget E, Covell D A, Boero R P, Lieber W S. Comparison of occlusal contacts with use of Hawley and clear overlay retainers. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 223-230.

  29. Zhu Y, Lin J, Long H et al. Comparison of survival time and comfort between 2 clear overlay retainers with different thicknesses: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151: 433-439.

  30. Gardner G D, Dunn W J, Taloumis L. Wear comparison of thermoplastic materials used for orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 294-297.

  31. Raja T A, Littlewood S J, Munyombwe T, Bubb N L. Wear resistance of four types of vacuum-formed retainer materials: a laboratory study. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 656-664.

  32. Doğramacı E, Chubb D, Rossi-Fedele G. Orthodontic thermoformed retainers: a two-arm laboratory study into post-fabrication outcomes. Aust Dent J 2018; 63: 347-355.

  33. Bratu D C, Vinatu V F, Pop S I, Petrescu P H, Simon C P, Popa G. Wear Resistance Under High Load Forces of Four Different Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol Vacuum-Formed Orthodontic Retainers. Mat Plast 2019; 56: 505.

  34. Kumar A G, Bansal A. Effectiveness and acceptability of Essix and Begg retainers: a prospective study. Aust Orthod J 2011; 27: 52-56.

  35. Horton J K, Buschang P H, Oliver D R, Behrents R G. Comparison of the effects of Hawley and perfector/spring aligner retainers on postorthodontic occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 729-736.

  36. Störmann I, Ehmer U. A prospective randomized study of different retainer types. J Orofac Orthop 2002; 63: 42-50.

  37. Gunay F, Oz A A. Clinical effectiveness of 2 orthodontic retainer wires on mandibular arch retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153: 232-238.

  38. Alrawas M B, Öz U, Kashoura Y, Tosun Ö. Comparing the effects of CAD/CAM Nickel Titanium lingual retainers on teeth stability and periodontal health with conventional fixed and removable retainers: A randomized clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2020; DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12425.

  39. Gelin E, Seidel L, Bruwier A, Albert A, Charavet C. Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: A randomized controlled trial. Korean J Orthod 2020; 50: 373.

  40. Rose E, Frucht S, Jonas I E. Clinical comparison of a multistranded wire and a direct-bonded polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite used for lingual retention. Quintessence Int 2002; 33: 579-583.

  41. Liu Y. Application of fibre-reinforced composite as fixed lingual retainer. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2010; 28: 290-293.

  42. Tacken M P, Cosyn J, De Wilde P, Aerts J, Govaerts E, Vannet B V. Glass fibre reinforced versus multistranded bonded orthodontic retainers: a 2 year prospective multi-centre study. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 117-123.

  43. Scribante A, Sfondrini M F, Broggini S, D'Allocco M, Gandini P. Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints. Int J Dent 2011; 2011: 548356.

  44. Bolla E, Cozzani M, Doldo T, Fontana M. Failure evaluation after a 6-year retention period: a comparison between glass fibre-reinforced (GFR) and multistranded bonded retainers. Int Orthod 2012; 10: 16-28.

  45. Salehi P, Najafi H Z, Roeinpeikar S M. Comparison of survival time between two types of orthodontic fixed retainer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod 2013; 14: 25.

  46. Sfondrini M F, Fraticelli D, Castellazzi L, Scribante A, Gandini P. Clinical evaluation of bond failures and survival between mandibular canine-to-canine retainers made of flexible spiral wire and fibre-reinforced composite. J Clin Exp Dent 2014; DOI: 10.4317/jced.51379.

  47. Torkan S, Oshagh M, Khojastepour L, Shahidi S, Heidari S. Clinical and radiographic comparison of the effects of two types of fixed retainers on periodontium - a randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod 2014; 15: 47.

  48. Sobouti F, Rakhshan V, Saravi M G, Zamanian A, Shariati M. Two-year survival analysis of twisted wire fixed retainer versus spiral wire and fibre-reinforced composite retainers: a preliminary explorative single-blind randomized clinical trial. Korean J Orthod 2016; 46: 104-110.

  49. Bazargani F, Jacobson S, Lennartsson B. A comparative evaluation of lingual retainer failure bonded with or without liquid resin: A randomized clinical study with 2-year follow-up. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 84-87.

  50. Egli F, Bovali E, Kiliaridis S, Cornelis M A. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: Comparison of retainer failures and posttreatment stability. A 2-year follow-up of a single-centre randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151: 15-27.

  51. Pandis N, Fleming P S, Kloukos D, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or photo polymerization over a 2-year period: a single-centre, randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 169-175.

  52. Booth F A, Edelman J M, Proffit W R. Twenty-year follow-up of patients with permanently bonded mandibular canine-to-canine retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 70-76.

  53. Pandis N, Vlahopoulos K, Madianos P, Eliades T. Long-term periodontal status of patients with mandibular lingual fixed retention. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29: 471-476.

  54. Kučera J, Marek I. Unexpected complications associated with mandibular fixed retainers: a retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149: 202-211.

  55. Katsaros C, Livas C, Renkema A-M. Unexpected complications of bonded mandibular lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 838-841.

  56. O'Rourke N, Albeedh H, Sharma P, Johal A. Effectiveness of bonded and vacuum-formed retainers: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150: 406-415.

  57. Forde K, Storey M, Littlewood S J, Scott P, Luther F, Kang J. Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 1: stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction outcomes after 12 months. Eur J Orthod 2018; 40: 387-398.

  58. Storey M, Forde K, Littlewood S J, Scott P, Luther F, Kang J. Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 2: periodontal health outcomes after 12 months. Eur J Orthod 2018; 40: 399-408.

  59. Krämer A, Sjöström M, Hallman M, Feldmann I. Vacuum-formed retainer versus bonded retainer for dental stabilization in the mandible - a randomized controlled trial. Part I: retentive capacity 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2020; 42: 551-558.

  60. Krämer A, Sjöström M, Hallman M, Feldmann I. Vacuum-formed retainers and bonded retainers for dental stabilization - a randomized controlled trial. Part II: patients' perceptions 6 and 18 months after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2021; 43: 136-143.

  61. Alkan Ö, Kaya Y. Changes in occlusal surface area and occlusal force distribution following the wear of vacuum-formed, Hawley and Bonded retainers: A controlled clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil 2020; 47: 766-774.

  62. Edman Tynelius G, Petrén S, Bondemark L, Lilja-Karlander E. Five-year postretention outcomes of three retention methods - a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37: 345-353.

  63. Tynelius G E, Lilja-Karlander E, Petrén S. A cost-minimization analysis of an RCT of three retention methods. Eur J Orthod 2014; 36: 436-441.

  64. Jin C, Bennani F, Grey A, Farella M, Mei L. Survival analysis of orthodontic retainers. Eur J Orthod 2018; 40: 531-536.

  65. Little R M. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975; 68: 554-563.

  66. Kucera J, Littlewood S J. Fixed retention: Pitfalls and complications. Br Dent J 2021; 230: 703-708.

  67. Dogramaci E, Littlewood S. Removable Retention: Practical Considerations. Br Dent J 2021; 230: 723-730.

  68. Xiao-Cen X, Ren-Mei L, Guo-Hua T. Clinical evaluation of lingual fixed retainer combined with Hawley retainer and vacuum-formed retainer. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2011; 20: 623-626.

  69. Bjering R, Birkeland K, Vandevska-Radunovic V. Anterior tooth alignment: A comparison of orthodontic retention regimens 5 years posttreatment. Angle Orthod 2015; 85: 353-359.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University through the Fast-track Research Funding Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Dalya Al-Moghrabi

  2. Orthodontic Department, St Luke’s Hospital, Bradford, UK

    Simon J. Littlewood

  3. Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Padhraig S. Fleming

Authors
  1. Dalya Al-Moghrabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon J. Littlewood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Padhraig S. Fleming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dalya Al-Moghrabi.

Ethics declarations

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Moghrabi, D., Littlewood, S. & Fleming, P. Orthodontic retention protocols: an evidence-based overview. Br Dent J 230, 770–776 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2954-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2954-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links