Comparison of failure rate of fixed orthodontic retainers on untreated and sandblasted teeth

Orthodontic treatment is considered successful not only when the desired results are achieved but also when long-term stability is ensured. due to increasing aesthetic demands from patients, long-term fixed retention is becoming more prevalent, sometimes extending to a lifetime. this necessitates the use of protocols that enhance the adhesion strength of fixed retainers to the tooth surface. one potential method for improving this adhesion is the pre- treatment of the enamel surface with al2o3 through intraoral sandblasting.
objective the aim of this study is to compare the failure rate associated with the debonding of fixed retainers in patients with treated and untreated enamel surfaces using the aquaCare* device.
results the results indicate a significantly lower incidence of retainer debonding in the aquaCare – treated group (14.00%, n = 7) compared to the untreated enamel group (34.00%, n = 16), with a z-score of -2.31 and a p-value of 0.02. among patients with debonded teeth, 85.70% of those treated with aquaCare had only one such tooth, while 14.30% had two debonded teeth. in contrast, within the untreated enamel group, 62.50% had one debonded tooth, 31.25% had two debonded teeth, and 6.25% had three debonded teeth. overall, the proportion of patients with more than one debonded tooth was 37.5% in the untreated group compared to 14.3% in the aquaCare-treated group.

Conclusion: the results of our study demonstrate a significantly lower incidence of retainer failure in the aquaCare-treated group compared to the untreated group. in both groups, retainer failure was more frequently observed in male patients. the majority of patients in both groups experienced the detachment of a single tooth; however, the proportion of patients with multiple debonded teeth was higher in the untreated enamel group. the distribution of debonded teeth showed that lateral incisors were most commonly affected, followed by canines and central incisors.

Key words: fixed retainer, debonding, sandblasting, adhesion.

Dr Vladimir Petrunov
Department of Orthodontics Faculty of Dental medicine Medical University – Sofia 1,“St. Georgi Sofiiski” Blvd. Sofia 1431, Bulgaria
e-mail: dr.petrunov@mail.bg

1. Andriekute A., Vasiliauskas A., Sidlauskas A. A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention. Prog Orthod. 2017; 9; 18(1): 31
2. Augusti D., Gabriele A., Francesca C., et all. Does Sandblasting Improve Bond Strength between Nano-ceramic Resin and Two Different Luting Composites? Bioceram Dev Appl. 2015; 5; 1: 1000086
3. Axelsson S., Zachrisson B. Clinical experience with direct- bonded labial retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1992; 26(8): 480-90
4. Baumgartner S., Koletsi D., Verna C. et all. The Effect of Enamel Sandblasting on Enhancing Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2017; 19(6): 463-73
5. Booth F., Edelman J., Proffit W. Twenty-year follow-up of patients with permanently bonded mandibular canine-to-canine retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(1): 70-6 6. Bovali E., Kiliaridis S., Cornelis M. Indirect vs direct bonding of mandibular fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a single- center randomized controlled trial comparing placement time and failure over a 6-month period. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014; 146(6): 701–8;
7. Buonocore G. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955; 34(6): 849-53
8. Cal-Neto J., Castro S., Moura P. et all Influence of enamel sandblasting prior to etching on shear bond strength of indirectly bonded lingual appliances. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81(1): 149-52
9. Cerny R., Cockrell D., Lloyd D. Long-term results of permanent
not treated with AquaCare, the relative proportion of patients with more than one loose tooth was up to 37.50% compared to 14.30% in the group treated with AquaCare. The relative proportion of the types of loose teeth in patients with a retainer problem showed the most frequent debonded lateral incisor, followed by canine and central incisor.
*The purchase of the Aqua Care device was funded by the GRANT 2023 research project, contract 213/03.08.2023 bonded retention. J Clin Orthod. 2010; 44(10): 611-6
10. Daratsianos N., Schütz B., Reimann S. et all. The influence of enamel sandblasting on the shear bond strength and fractography of the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex tested in vitro by the DIN 13990:2017-04 standard. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23(7): 2975-85
11. Durbin D. Relapse and the need for permanent fixed retention. J Clin Orthod. 2001; 35(12): 723-7
12. Foek D., Ozcan M., Krebs E. et all. Adhesive properties of bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber-reinforced composites. J Adhes Dent. 2009; 11(5): 381-90 13. Giau T., Rucker R., Foley P. et all. Relapse and failure rates between CAD/CAM and conventional fixed retainers: a 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2024; 46(1): cjad079
14. Iliadi A., Kloukos D., Gkantidis N. et all. Failure of fixed orthodontic retainers: A systematic review. J Dent. 2015; 43: 876–96
15. Kaan M., Madlena M. Retention and relapse. Review of the literature. Fogorvosi szemle 2011; 104: 139–46
16. Katsaros C., Livas C., Renkema A. Unexpected complications of bonded mandibular lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(6): 838-41
17. Knerim R. Invisible lower cuspid to cuspid retainer. Angle Orthod. 1973; 43: 218–9
18. Kocher K., Gebistorf M., Pandis N. et all. Survival of maxillary and mandibular bonded retainers 10 to 15 years after orthodontic treatment: a retrospective observational study. ProgOrthod. 2019; 20(1): 28
19. Olsen M., Bishara S., Jakobsen J. et all. Comparison of shear bond strength and surface structure between conventional acid etching and air-abrasion of human enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1997; 112(5): 502-6
20. Padmos J., Fudalej P., Renkema A. Epidemiologic study of orthodontic retention procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 153(4): 496-504
21. Patcas R., Zinelis S., Eliades G. et all. Surface and interfacial analysis of sandblasted and acid-etched enamel for bonding orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2015; 147(4): S64 – S75
22. Petrunov V. Clinical effectiveness of titanium CAD/CAM retainers from a biochemical point of view. J of IMAB. 2023; 29(1): 4820-5
23. Robles-Ruíz J., Ciamponi A., Medeiros I. et all. Effect of lingual enamel sandblasting with aluminum oxide of different particle sizes in combination with phosphoric acid etching on indirect bonding of lingual brackets. Angle Orthod. 2014; 84 (6): 1068–73
24. Rose E., Frucht S., Jonas I. Clinical comparison of a multistranded wire and a direct-bonded polyethylene ribbon- reinforced resin composite used for lingual retention. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33(8): 579–83
25. Schütz-Fransson U., Lindsten R., Bjerklin K. et all. Mandibular incisor alignment in untreated subjects compared with long-term changes after orthodontic treatment with or without retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019; 155(2): 234-42 Àäðåñ çà êîðåñïîíäåíöèÿ: Address for correspondence:
д-р Владимир Петрунов
Катедра по Ортодонтия Факултет по Дентална Медицина Медицински Университет, София Бул.“Св. Георги Софийски” No 1 София 1431, България
e-mail: dr.petrunov@mail.bg
26. Segner D., Heinrici B. Bonded retainers – clinical reliability. J Orofac Orthop 2000; 61: 352-8
27. Shaughnessy T., Proffit W., Samara S. Inadvertent tooth movement with fixed lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 149(2): 277-86
28. Störmann I., Ehmer U. A prospective randomized study of different retainer types. J Orofac Orthop. 2002; 63(1): 42-50
29. Taner T., Aksu M. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34(4): 470–4
30. Vaden J., Harris E., Gardner R. Relapse revisited. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111(5): 543-53
31. Wolf M., Schumacher P., Jäger F. et all. Novel lingual retainer created using CAD/CAM technology: evaluation of its positioning accuracy. J Orofac Orthop. 2015; 76(2): 164-74
32. Zachrisson B., Buyukyilmaz T. Bonded retainers. in Graber L., Vanarsdall R., Vig K. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2012
33. Zachrisson B. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod. 1977; 71(4): 440-8
34. Zachrisson B. Long-term experience with direct-bonded retainers: update and clinical advice. J Clin Orthod. 2007; 41(12): 728-37
35. Zachrisson B. Multistranded wire bonded retainers: from start to success. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 148(5): 724-7 36. Zachrisson B. The bonded lingual retainer and multiple spacing of anterior teeth. J Clin Orthod. 1983; 17: 838-44