We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry



Forgotten password?


Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Oral Health Prev Dent 18 (2020), Open Access     12. Feb. 2020
Oral Health Prev Dent 18 (2020), Open Access  (12.02.2020)

Open Access ORTHODONTICS, Online Article, Page 633-641, doi:10.3290/j.ohpd.a44939, PubMed:32700517

Online Article: Long-term Effectiveness of Maxillary and Mandibular Bonded Orthodontic Retainers
Kocher, Katharina E. / Gebistorf, Meret C. / Pandis, Nikolaos / Fudalej, Piotr S. / Katsaros, Christos
Purpose: This retrospective cohort study investigated the long-term effectiveness of one type of maxillary and 2 types of mandibular fixed lingual retainers.
Materials and Methods: Eighty orthodontic patients in retention for 10-15 years were included. Irregularity index, intercanine width, overjet (OJ) and overbite (OB) were measured on plaster models at 3 occasions: (T1) pre-treatment, (T2) post-treatment and (T3) 10-15 years post-treatment. Analyses assessed the effect of the retainer type and time on mandibular irregularity, intercanine width and retainer failure.
Results: In the mandible, the irregularity index increased (0.43 mm) between T2 and T3 for the 0.027" β-titanium (TMA) retainers bonded to canines only while it was stable (-0.02 mm) for the 0.016" x 0.022" braided stainless steel retainers (SS6) bonded to all six anterior teeth. The intercanine width was relatively stable in both groups during the entire observation period. In the maxilla, the irregularity index was stable between T2 and T3 (+0.07 mm). The intercanine width increased (+2.02 mm) during treatment T1-T2 and was stable (-0.02 mm) in the retention phase T2 to T3.
Conclusions: In the mandible, SS6 retainers were slightly more effective in maintaining alignment compared to the TMA retainers. In the maxilla, the SS4 retainers without canine extensions were effective in maintaining alignment. All retainers were effective in maintaining the intercanine width.

Keywords: adverse effects, effectiveness, efficiency, failures, fixed retainers, irregularity index, long-term retention, retention