PERSONALISED RETENTION PLANS: TAILORING RETAINERS THROUGH ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC METHODS
Main Article Content
Keywords
personalized retention, orthodontic relapse, retainer customization, diagnostics, treatment planning.
Abstract
Orthodontic relapse is a prevalent issue, and it is frequently caused by uniform retention prescriptions that disregard individual risk factors. Despite the advancement of computerized diagnostics, individualization of retainer form and wearing duration is not widely used. This research evaluates a new diagnostic-directed strategy for tailoring retention regimens based on patient-specific anatomic and biomechanical risk factors. To compare the efficacy of individually created retention plans based on sophisticated diagnostics to typical retainer plans in maintaining post-treatment orthodontic stability. 80 patients aged 14-30 years who had completed fixed appliance treatment were randomly assigned to either the tailored or standard retention groups. To stratify the risk of recurrence, the customized group had digital intraoral scanning, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography imaging (CBCT), and 3D cephalometric analysis. Retention plans (type retainer and wear schedule) were also tailored. The control group received a conventional Hawley or Vacuum Formed Retainer (VFR) with the same wear orders. Little's Irregularity Index (LII), cephalometric changes, compliance, and satisfaction were all measured at 6 and 12 months. The personalized group had significantly reduced LII at both time intervals (T1: 1.12 +/- 0.38 mm; T2: 1.36 +/- 0.42 mm) compared to the control group (T1: 1.84 +/- 0.61 mm; T2: 2.24 +/- 0.73 mm; p < 0.001). There were also higher compliance and satisfaction ratings. The risk of relapse model demonstrated strong predictive validity (AUC = 0.87). Using diagnostics to customize orthodontic retention improves post-treatment stability, compliance, and recurrence. This procedure is clinically feasible and should be regarded as a future standard for orthodontic retention treatments.
References
2. Alqerban, A., Willems, G., Bernaerts, C., Vangastel, J., Politis, C., & Jacobs, R. (2014).Orthodontic treatment planning for impacted maxillary canines using conventional records versus 3D CBCT. European journal of orthodontics, 36(6), 698-707.
3. Aragón, M. L., Pontes, L. F., Bichara, L. M., Flores-Mir, C., & Normando, D. (2016). Validityand reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: asystematic review. European journal of orthodontics, 38(4), 429-434.
4. Demir, A., Babacan, H., Nalcacı, R., & Topcuoglu, T. (2012). Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics, 42(5), 255-262.
5. Edman Tynelius, G., Bondemark, L., & Lilja-Karlander, E. (2010).Evaluation of orthodontictreatment after 1 year of retention—a randomized controlled trial.The European Journal ofOrthodontics,32(5), 542-547.
6. Goracci, C., Franchi, L., Vichi, A., & Ferrari, M. (2016).Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency ofintraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinicalevidence.European journal of orthodontics,38(4), 422-428.
7. Lippold, C., Kirschneck, C., Schreiber, K., Abukiress, S., Tahvildari, A., Moiseenko, T., &Danesh, G. (2015). Methodological accuracy of digital and manual model analysis inorthodontics–A retrospective clinical study. Computers in biology and medicine, 62, 103-109.
8. Raucci, G., Elyasi, M., Pachêco-Pereira, C., Grassia, V., d’Apuzzo, F., Flores-Mir, C., & Perillo,L. (2015). Predictors of long-term stability of maxillary dental arch dimensions in patients treatedwith a transpalatal arch followed by fixed appliances.Progress in Orthodontics,16, 1-6.
9. Saleh, M., Hajeer, M. Y., & Muessig, D. (2017). Acceptability comparison between Hawleyretainers and vacuum-formed retainers in orthodontic adult patients: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Orthodontics, 39(4), 453-461.
10. Steinnes, J., Johnsen, G., & Kerosuo, H. (2017). Stability of orthodontic treatment outcomeconcerning retention status: an 8-year follow-up. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,151(6), 1027-1033.

