Fastened orthodontic bonded retainers – failure charges


Following lively orthodontic remedy undesirable tooth motion or relapse could happen the place the dentition, partly or utterly returns to its pre-treatment state. With a view to forestall or cut back relapse plenty of retention methods are employed together with using fastened and detachable retainers mentioned in a current Cochrane assessment by Martin et al (Dental Elf – 6th Jun 2023). This assessment focusses on the failure charges of fastened orthodontic bonded retainers.

The principle intention of this assessment was to evaluate the prevalence of failure of each maxillary and mandibular fastened orthodontic bonded retainers (FOBRs).


A protocol was registered with PROSPERO.  Searches have been performed within the Cochrane Central Register of Managed Trials (CENTRAL); The Cochrane Library Medline, Embase, Medical (https://www., the Nationwide Analysis Register (https://dis-, and Professional-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database (http://pqdtopen.proquest. com) with no language restrictions.  Randomised medical trials (RCTs) and potential managed medical trials (CCTs) in sufferers of any age who accomplished a course of orthodontic remedy and have been retained utilizing FOBRs have been thought of.

Three reviewers independently chosen research with information being extracted by two reviewers. Three reviewers assessed Threat of bias for utilizing the Cochrane danger of bias 2.0 device for RCTs and the Newcastle Ottawa device getting used for non-randomised research. The first end result was failure fee associated to loosening, breakage, and bond failure.  Components influencing failure e.g., sort retainer wire, adhesive, and bonding method have been secondary outcomes. For steady information imply variations (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) have been calculated together with danger ratio (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous information. The GRADE (Grading of Suggestions Evaluation, Improvement, and Analysis) standards have been used to report certainty of the proof.


  • 34 research (25 RCTs, 9 potential medical trials) involving a complete of three,484 sufferers (4,540 FOBRs) have been included.
  • 6 research have been performed in Switzerland, 5 in Turkey, 3 research in Italy. Iran and the USA, 2 research in Germany, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and the UK and one examine in Belgium, Canada, China, and Pakistan.
  • 26 research have been performed in a college hospital setting and eight research in an orthodontic apply setting.
  • A variety of standards have been used to evaluate failure fee together with, retainer failure, debonding fee, fracture in both the wire or composite with or with out partial or complete loosening of the retainer from the enamel and incidence of retainer loss or breakage.
  • Failure fee for mandibular retainers was reported by all 34 research with simply 9 research reporting failure fee of each maxillary and mandibular retainers.
  • 9 research reported a follow-up interval of 6 months, 22 research a medium-term follow-up interval of between 1 and 4 years and three research a long-term follow-up interval of 5–6 years.
  • Not one of the included research have been at low danger of bias. 13 RCTs have been at excessive danger of bias with 12 RCTs having some issues. One of many non-RCT potential research rated as top quality, 6 have been thought of truthful and two as poor-quality research.
  • The failure fee of FOBR for each arches and particular person maxillary and mandibular arches are proven within the desk under along with sensitivity analyses excluding non-RCTs and excessive danger of bias RCTs.
  No of research Failure fee (95percentCI)
Maxillary and mandibular arches 31 28.17% (23.19 to 33.15%)
maxillary and mandibular arches (sensitivity evaluation) 22 35.22% (27.46–42.98%)
Maxillary arch 9 35.59% (24.44–46.73%)
Maxillary arch (sensitivity evaluation) 6 37.53% [27.73–47.32%)
Mandibular arch 31 27.94% (23.03–32.85%)
Mandibular arch (sensitivity analysis) 22 38.67% (31.00–46.34%)
  • The table below shows failure rates at different follow up times together with sensitivity analyses excluding non-RCTs and high risk of bias RCTs.
  No of studies Failure rate (95%CI)
Up to 12 months follow up
Both arches 9 21.44% (15.69 to 27.20%)
Both arches -sensitivity analysis 4 24.18% (20.16 to 29.21%)
Maxillary arch 3 21.10% (10.98 to 31.22%)
Maxillary arch – sensitivity analysis 1 21.91% (15.83 to 27.99%)
Mandibular arch 8 21.77% (15.68 to 27.87%)
Mandibular arch-sensitivity analysis 4 25.02% (19.10 to 30.94%)
1 to 4 years follow up
Both arches 19 29.26% (21.97 to 36.55%)
Both arches -sensitivity analysis 6 40.09% (30.92 to 49.26%)
Maxillary arch 5 44.84% (28.95 to 60.73%)
Maxillary arch -sensitivity analysis 2 41.07% (35.63 to 46.50%)
Mandibular arch 19 28.91% (21.92 to 35.89%)
Mandibular arch-sensitivity analysis 6 45.60% (40.83 to 50.37%)
5 to 6 years follow up
Both arches 3 41.78% (25.41 to 58.14%)
Maxillary arch 1 34.38% (17.92 to 50.84%)
Mandibular arch 3 41.05% (23.18 to 58.93%)
Mandibular arch-sensitivity analysis 1 53.85% (40.31 to 67.39%)
  • No statistically significant difference in retainer failure was found between direct and indirect bonding with a RR = 0.84 (95%CI: 0.57 to 1.25) [6 studies].
  • No statistically vital distinction in retainer failure between resin and non-resin composites was evident (RR = 0.44 (95percentCI: 0.06 to 2.95) [2 studies].
  • Pooled estimates for 5 research (898 FOBR) utilizing the entire retainer because the unit of evaluation indicated no statistically vital distinction between multi-stranded wire and fibre-reinforced composite, RR = 1.76 (95percentCI: 0.86 to three.58)


The authors concluded: –

  • The failure fee of fastened bonded retainers is comparatively excessive, 38.67% within the mandible and 37.53% within the maxilla. Nearly 25% of FOBR failed within the first 12 months with the chance of failure growing over time to virtually 50% at 6 years observe up.
  • Oblique bonding, FRC, and using liquid resin with composite would not have a big affect on the failure fee of fastened bonded retainers.
  • There’s a want for high-quality, well-reported medical research to evaluate components that affect the failure fee of fixed-bonded retainers.


The current Cochrane assessment (Dental Elf – 6th Jun 2023) solely discovered vey low to low certainty proof for various retention methods. This assessment focuses on failure charges for fastened orthodontically bonded retainers. The creator registered their protocol and searches a broad vary of related databases together with 34 research of which 25 have been RCTs. Not one of the RCTS have been thought of to be at low danger of bias, 13 being assessed at being at excessive danger and 12 having some issues. Quite a lot of meta-analyses have been carried out and for most of the outcomes assessed sensitivity evaluation have been undertaken the place excessive danger research have been excluded.

An total failure fee for FOBR of 28.17% (23.19 to 33.15%) based mostly on 31 research was discovered. Failure charges have been greater within the maxilla 35.59% (24.44–46.73%) than the mandible 21.77% (15.68 to 27.87%) with failure charges growing with size of observe up. Increased failure charges have been seen for outcomes the place sensitivity evaluation was undertaken. The general certainty of the proof was rated as very low to low so the findings must be thought of fastidiously as new proof is prone to change these estimates. The Cochrane reviewers (Dental Elf – 6th Jun 2023) outlined plenty of suggestions for future retention research which can be wanted to enhance the standard of proof regarding orthodontic retention.


Major Paper

Aye ST, Liu S, Byrne E, El-Angbawi A. The prevalence of the failure of fastened orthodontic bonded retainers: a scientific assessment and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2023 Oct 12:cjad047. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjad047. Epub forward of print. PMID: 37824794.

Evaluation protocol on  PROSPERO

Different references

Dental Elf – 6th Jun 2023


Dental Elf – Orthodontic retainer blogs



Supply hyperlink
We will be happy to hear your thoughts

Leave a reply