Orthodontic Retention Research Articles

An evaluation of occlusal changes during orthodontic retention

The problem of orthodontic relapse is of fundamental importance for clinicians. In the literature there are few studies concerning the change in position of the teeth after orthodontic treatment. This study analyzes the occlusal changes during the first six months of orthodontic retention and the effectiveness of the Hawley retainer at the upper arch and the canine-to-canine multi-stranded fixed retainer at the lower arch in maintaining the anterior tooth alignment. 48 patients were recruited. PAR index, ABO DI, ABO CRE, Irregularity Index, intercanine, interpremolar and intermolar widths were measured for each patient before (T0) and at the end (T1) of the fixed orthodontic treatment and after 1 (T2), 3 (T3) and 6 (T4) months of retention. Statistics used were paired samples t-test and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. The p-value was considered statistically significant for P<0.05. During 6 months in retention there was a worsening of PAR index (mean: 1.13±1.08; P<0.001), dental alignment (median: 2.5; P=0.0001) and occlusal relationships (median: 2; P=0.0101); a statistically significant improvement of posterior occlusal contacts (median: 2.54; P=0.0004), marginal ridges (median: 0.5; P=0.0250) and interproximal contacts (median: 0.46; P=0.0305). The stability of the orthodontic results has proved to be similar for the two dental arches, as well as the effectiveness of the two retainers in maintaining the alignment of the anterior teeth. During 6 months in retention the occlusal changes were minimal and didn’t affect the stability of the orthodontic treatment in a clinically significant manner. The effectiveness of the upper Hawley retainer and the lower multi-stranded fixed retainer in maintaining the alignment of the anterior teeth was similar.

The effects of fulvic acids and low-level laser therapy on orthodontic retention in rats

BackgroundShortening retention time and minimizing relapse rates are ongoing challenges in orthodontics. This study investigated the effects of natural fulvic acids (FAs) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on orthodontic retention in rats.MethodsSeventy-two male Sprague-Dawley rats underwent mesial movement of the left maxillary first molar using a 50 g force via a nickel-titanium tension spring. After three weeks of movement, the rats entered the retention phase with retainer wires and were divided into four groups: Control (no intervention), FAs (80 mg/kg orally daily), LLLT (808 nm laser twice weekly), and FAs + LLLT (both treatments). Retainers were removed on days 7, 14, and 21 for a 3-day relapse assessment. Maxillary impressions were analyzed for relapse rates using 3Shape software, alongside histological and immunohistochemical evaluations of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) expression in periodontal tissues, with differences among groups analyzed using an ordinary two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).ResultsThe relapse rate decreased over time, particularly at 10, 17, and 24 days (p < 0.001). The FAs group did not significantly affect relapse rates compared to the control group (p = 0.084). In contrast, both the LLLT and FAs + LLLT groups significantly reduced relapse rate (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between these groups (p = 0.555). Histological examination revealed active osteoclasts on day 10, decreasing by days 17 and 24. The LLLT and FAs + LLLT groups showed less local cementum resorption and better periodontal fiber arrangement. All treatment groups significantly increased BMP-2 expression (P < 0.05) compared to controls. with LLLT and FAs + LLLT differing significantly from FAs (P < 0.001), though no difference was observed between LLLT and FAs + LLLT (P = 0.578).ConclusionsFAs did not significantly reduce relapse rate with retainers, while LLLT effectively reduced relapse rates, showing no additional benefit from combining FAs with LLLT. Both FAs and LLLT increased BMP-2 expression in PDL fibroblasts but with no synergistic effect.

Scientific rationale for Clinical Practice Guidelines (part 2): what is the effectiveness of retention devices?

Retention is the set of means, processes or devices that contribute to maintaining the teeth in the position and the arches in the shape given by the orthodontic treatment. The main objective is to propose Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) on orthodontic retention by answering four main questions. This article provides the first part of the answer to the second question: How effective are the retention devices? A literature review was carried out after a bibliographic search using keywords in bibliographic databases and in international organizations websites. 652articles were selected after the bibliographic search, and only 53met the inclusion criteria. These were used to develop the CPG full-text and guidelines. Ten CPGs were issued from this review, divided into 12items, 10of which are gradeC and 2are expert agreements. Forty CPGs about orthodontic retention were proposed from this literature review, 10of which are presented in this second part. In the mandible, fixed retention provides better stability than removable retention and 6-tooth retention is more effective in maintaining incisal alignment. Fixed and removable retention are equivalent in maintaining extraction spaces and arch length. Removable retention allows for minimal tooth movement and establishment of occlusal contacts.

Scientific rationale for Clinical Practice Guidelines (part 1): what are the factors that determine the choice of retention?

Retention is the set of means, processes or devices that contribute to maintaining the teeth in the position and the arches in the shape given by the orthodontic treatment. The main objective is to propose Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) on orthodontic retention by answering 4main questions. This article provides the answer to the first question: What are the factors that determine whether or not to use a retainer? A literature review was carried out after a bibliographic search using keywords in bibliographic databases and in international organizations websites. 652articles were selected after the bibliographic search, and only 53met the inclusion criteria. These were used to develop the CPG full-text and guidelines. 12CPGs were issued from this review, divided into 15items, 8of which were gradeC and 7were expert agreements. 40CPGs about orthodontic retention were proposed from this literature review, 12of which are presented in this first part. The stability of orthodontic treatment depends on the initial orthodontic anomalies, residual growth, orthodontic treatment modalities, and the final occlusion. Orthodontists must consider the effectiveness of the appliances, the patients' compliance and oral hygiene. The amount of alveolar bone, the neuromuscular and functional balance are relapse factors.

Role of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Alveolar Bone Remodeling during Orthodontic Retention Phase in Rat Models.

Alveolar bone remodeling during the retention phase is essential for successful orthodontic treatment. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is an adjunctive therapy for bone-related diseases that induces osteogenesis and prevents bone loss. This study aimed to examine the role of PEMF exposure during the retention phase of orthodontic treatment in alveolar bone remodeling. A total of 36 male Wistar rats were divided into control, PEMF 7, and PEMF 14 groups; a 50 g force nickel-titanium closed-coil spring was inserted to create mesial movement in the first molar for 21 d. Furthermore, the spring was removed, and the interdental space was filled with glass ionomer cement. Concurrently, rats were exposed to a PEMF at 15 Hz with a maximum intensity of 2.0 mT 2 h daily, for 7 and 14 days. Afterwards, the cements were removed and the rats were euthanized on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 to evaluate the expression of Wnt5a mRNA and the levels of RANKL, OPG, ALP, and Runx2 on the tension side. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and post hoc tests, with p < 0.05 declared statistically significant. PEMF exposure significantly upregulated Wnt5a mRNA expression, OPG and ALP levels, and Runx2 expression, and decreased RANKL levels in the PEMF 7 and 14 groups compared to the control group (p < 0.05). This study showed that PEMF exposure promotes alveolar bone remodeling during the orthodontic retention phase on the tension side by increasing alveolar bone formation and inhibiting resorption.

Evaluation of Orthodontic Retention Protocols and Their Impact on Treatment Stability: Insights from a Tertiary Care Study

ABSTRACT Context: The goals of orthodontic therapy are to provide stable treatment results and the best possible tooth alignment. Orthodontic retention regimens are essential for avoiding relapses after treatment; however, there is ongoing discussion on the best regimen. Methods: Orthodontic patients treated at a tertiary care center were the subject of a retrospective analysis. Information was gathered about follow-up evaluations, treatment techniques, patient demographics, and retention procedures. Relapse rates and occlusal characteristics were among the objective variables used to evaluate treatment stability. A statistical analysis evaluated the effectiveness of various retention strategies. Findings: When it came to preserving treatment stability, fixed retainers outperformed detachable appliances, Hawley retainers, and Essix retainers. The mean changes in occlusal parameters and relapse rates were greater for removable appliances, but the performance of Hawley and Essix retainers was moderate. Significant variations in retention techniques were verified by statistical analysis, with fixed retainers outperforming alternative detachable retainers and removable appliances. In conclusion, compared to alternative detachable retainers and removable equipment, fixed retainers are more successful in preserving treatment stability. Retention protocols, however, must to be established with each patient’s needs and treatment preferences in mind. The length of patient compliance and retention has a crucial role in determining the stability of therapy, underscoring the significance of patient education and continued monitoring. To improve long-term treatment results and optimize orthodontic retention techniques, further research and technical developments are required.

Assessment of Orthodontic Retention Protocols and their Effects on Treatment Stability.

Orthodontic retention protocols are crucial for maintaining treatment stability post-orthodontic treatment. However, the optimal retention strategy remains debated. A retrospective analysis of patient records from a tertiary orthodontic center over 5 years was conducted. Variables, including retention protocols employed, duration of retention, and treatment stability, were weighed. Fixed retainers were the most commonly utilized retention protocol, followed by removable retainers and combination methods. Although the incidence of treatment relapse appeared higher among patients with removable retainers, the difference did not reach statistical significance. Combination protocols demonstrated comparable treatment stability to fixed retainers. This research gives understanding of the effectiveness of orthodontic retention protocols in a tertiary center setting. While fixed retainers remain widely used, removable retainers and combination methods also show promise in maintaining treatment stability. Addressing patient compliance issues and optimizing retention strategies based on individual patient needs are essential for enhancing treatment outcomes.

Digital Model in Orthodontics: Is It Really Necessary for Every Treatment Procedure? A Scoping Review

Digital models and three-dimensional technology in orthodontics have become an integral part of everyday clinical practice. Nevertheless, there is currently no consensus regarding in which cases a digital model is really necessary. Therefore, this scoping review aims to identify and assess which orthodontic procedures require a digital model. This review’s reporting was based on PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was undertaken using five electronic databases on 17 February 2024. A total of 87 studies met the inclusion criteria and were qualitatively analyzed by three reviewers. The following aspects of orthodontic treatment were identified and discussed with regard to digital model application: diagnosis, treatment procedures, retention, and outcome evaluation in orthodontics. Based on the studies assessed, despite some limitations regarding radiation exposure justification and the accuracy of the integration methods of 3D data, there is evidence that digital models lead to more accurate orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. In cases of impacted canines, aligner treatment, mini-implants insertion (when angle definition and orientation are essential), and primary care for cleft lip and palate, a partial digital model produced by an integration of some of the 3D data (face scan, intraoral scan, CBCT) that we can acquire is beneficial. A full digital model that combines all the 3D information should be used in orthognathic surgery cases, in which prediction and accurate performance are highly advocated.

Keeping the teeth in line: Exploring the necessity of bonded retainers in orthodontics: A narrative review.

In most recent studies, long-term retention after orthodontic treatment has been hypothesized that may be necessary to maintain the stability of the dentition and avoid post-treatment changes. The bonded fixed retainer is characterized by its clinical effectiveness, patient acceptance, and lack of patient complaints as compared with a removable retainer. An electronic database (such as PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ResearchGate) has been collected using specific keywords. Of the 152 articles, only randomized clinical trials that investigated different types of fixed retainers or compared fixed with removable retainers were illustrated in tables and included in this review. The present review has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of the bonded fixed retainer, types, material, bonding methods, and how to improve its the success rate, besides the importance of new technology in fixed orthodontic retention.

Enhancing Orthodontic Renewal and Retention Techniques: A Systematic Review.

Orthodontists have a variety of options available for retainers. Research in Orthodontics focuses on assessing outcomes important to clinicians; however, there is inconsistency in how these outcomes are selected and evaluated. This review sought to assess the effects of different orthodontic retainers on patients' quality of life (QoL). Various approaches were employed in this systematic review, and a thorough search was conducted across six databases. The review involved a comprehensive evaluation of six included studies, highlighting changes in dental structure post-treatment, emphasizing the role of extraction procedures and the quality of debonding in improving retention. The study identified key outcomes for orthodontic clinical trials, highlighting orthodontists' preferences for specific retainer types. Moreover, it discussed the impact of sociocultural influences on retention care. Involving patients actively in discussions about whether to end or extend the retention phase was deemed essential. Noteworthy improvements in occlusal outcomes were linked to extraction treatments. Gender and malocclusion severity influenced QoL before and after orthodontic treatment. The degree of improvement observed in the Class III malocclusion group was comparatively lower than that in the Class I and Class II groups. Orthodontic treatment was found to yield favorable psychological outcomes, as evidenced by notable enhancements in self-esteem and social engagement among individuals. Fixed appliances were shown to negatively affect oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), particularly for those with aesthetic and functional concerns. A consensus has been reached on the essential themes and outcomes that should be incorporated in clinical trials related to orthodontic retention for non-cleft and non-surgical cases.

Evaluation of Orthodontic Retention Protocol among Orthodontist and General Dentist-A Cross-Sectional Survey

ABSTRACT Aim: The current study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the retention protocol followed by orthodontists in India. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional web-based questionnaire survey was carried out to evaluate the retention protocol. To determine the sample size, a pilot study was carried out, and the final sample arrived was 250 subjects. The current study’s inclusion criteria took into account those who had finished their BDS&amp;MDS (Orthodontist). Results: The data were statistically examined when the surveys were received and completed. The choice for fixed retainers was 67.4%. Retainer wear time preferences ranged widely, with 60% preferring 12–18 hours. The initial post-retention check appointment was planned by the majority of orthodontists (47.6%) within the next three months. Recall appointments for retention checks were only planned by the majority of orthodontists (56.3%) once every three months. Regular involvement by patients at their retention check appointments was (38%). Conclusion: The most commonly used and preferred type of retainer is fixed retainer, and dentist preferences range around 12–18 hours of wear time. Furthermore, the duration of the retainer wear preferred by most orthodontists/dentists is 10 months to 2 years.

Orthodontic retention: Rationale and periodontal implications.

Post-treatment change in the form of true relapse and physiological and maturational effects is common following orthodontics. The unpredictable nature of these manifestations dictates a conservative, near-universal approach to retention. Both fixed and removable forms of retention are popular with the latter constrained by variable levels of adherence particularly in the medium- to long-term. Fixed retention may offer a more predictable means of preservation of orthodontic outcomes; however, this advantage is offset by the requirement for prolonged supervision and the potential for adverse changes including periodontal breakdown. Nevertheless, while examples of severe complications are common, a clear causal relationship between intact, passive retainers and periodontal issues does not appear to exist. Nevertheless, the importance of diligent maintenance and careful supervision during fixed retention, in particular, cannot be disregarded.

Management Strategies for Open Bite Relapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of orthodontic therapy is to correct malocclusion and produce a stable outcome that endures over time. Long-term stability can be difficult to achieve, and many patients relapse after treatment, particularly in instances of open bite relapse (OBR). This systematic review aimed to analyze different types of management strategies for OBR and conduct a meta-analysis to find the best method of dealing with relapse. A comprehensive search was carried out across six major online databases using relevant keywords pertaining to our study, including "open bite relapse," "orthodontic retention," "orthodontic surgery," "orthodontic appliance," "orthodontic management," "orthodontic treatment," "orofacial myofunctional therapy (OMT)," "skeletal anchorage," and "treatment follow-up period." Eleven studies were selected after the application of relevant inclusion and exclusion strategies. The mean follow-up period of treatment for the studies ranged from six months to 4.5 years. Of all the management strategies assessed, OMT was found to be the least effective for OBR management. Surgical management modalities, such as mandibular repositioning and molar intrusion using skeletal anchorage, in conjunction with the usage of orthodontic appliances, were found to be noticeably effective, especially in the cases of participants who were <18 years of age. However, when utilized on a singular basis, either of them was found to be lacking the desired effect. The overall odds ratio (OR) of 0.48 (0.37, 0.64) and risk ratio (RR) of 0.62 (0.51, 0.74) were obtained after the meta-analysis of the different interventions for OBR, indicating statistical significance. There were only 11 studies included in the study, so it's possible that not all management strategies for OBR were fully understood. The limited number of studies may also have affected the generalizability of the findings. Although statistical differences were obtained to a certain degree, more clinical trials are needed to assess the effect of such surgical modalities as a viable management tool for OBR, since these represent a significant limiting factor in terms of the overall cost of the treatment placed upon the patient. Prior to the start of the research, registration was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. The research protocol was created to meet the goals and was properly filed with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023401991).

Effect of Lithium on Orthodontic Tooth Movement: a Systematic Review of Animal Studies.

This study aimed to systematically review the effect of lithium on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). The focus question was "does lithium have an effect on OTM?" A systematic search was conducted using indexed databases and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. The quality assessment of the selected studies was performed according to the systematic review center for laboratory animal experimentation. Five of the initially identified 656 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were selected for this review. The studies reported that lithium administration lowered the rate of OTM by inducing a reduction in the number of osteoclasts and possibly inhibiting osteoclastogenesis. These studies further showed an increase in bone density and bone volume by promoting the Wnt/ß-catenin signaling pathway and osteoblastogenesis. It was also noted that lithium reduced orthodontically induced root resorption during experimental OTM. Further, standardized studies are warranted to understand the impact of lithium in OTM. Overall, the risk of bias for 3 studies was very high, high in 1 study, and moderate in 1 study. On an experimental level in animals, lithium decreased the rate of OTM during the active treatment phase by increasing bone density and bone volume and reducing root resorption. In addition, lithium may enhance alveolar bone formation during orthodontic retention. Clinically, this may impact the orthodontic treatment duration in patients receiving lithium, and further studies are needed to understand the true impact of lithium on OTM.

Orthodontic retention procedures in Switzerland.

To survey retention procedures used in orthodontic practices in Switzerland. A questionnaire previously developed by Renkema et al. (2009) was sent to 223 Swiss orthodontists. The questionnaire comprised six parts, mainly containing multiple-choice questions. Information as to background education of the individual orthodontist, retention in general, frequency of different types of removable or bonded retainers that were used, retention pro- tocol, and the type and size of the wire used for bonded retainers was assessed. The overall response rate was 65 percent. Most orthodontists placed a bonded retainer in the upper and lower arch, except when the upper arch was expanded during treatment or when extractions were performed in the upper arch, in which case they placed a combination of fixed and removable retainers. Opinions varied with regard to how many hours the removable retainers should be worn and the duration of the retention phase. As far as bonded retainers were concerned, 87 percent of the orthodontists preferred life-long retention. Ninety-three percent of the orthodontists considered that the development of a guide- line on retention procedures would be useful. The choice of retention procedures is mostly based on orthodontists personal preference. A further research into the long-term effectiveness of individual retention protocols is needed.

Evaluation of Bond Strength and Adhesive Remnant Index of Different Lingual Retainers in Human Incisor Teeth

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the bond strengths of four different lingual retainers and assess the adhesive remnant index (ARI) to determine their effectiveness in orthodontic retention. Methodology: Eighty human incisor teeth were divided into four groups, with each group bonded using a different retainer: Group 1 (E-Glass retainer), Group 2 (0.017” Co-axial stainless steel wire), Group 3 (Splint C.T. fiber mesh), and Group 4 (0.010” stainless steel ligature wire). Bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and ARI scores were recorded to assess bond failure types. Results: Group 1 (E-Glass retainer) demonstrated the highest bond strength, followed by Group 3 (Splint C.T. fiber mesh), Group 2 (Co-axial stainless steel wire), and Group 4 (stainless steel ligature wire). Cohesive bond failures were observed in most groups, except for the co-axial stainless steel wire group, which exhibited adhesive failures. Conclusion: E-Glass fiber-reinforced retainers showed the highest bond strength, making them a promising alternative to conventional stainless steel wires for orthodontic retention, especially in patients with esthetic concerns or nickel hypersensitivity. Stainless steel retainer groups exhibited lower bond strengths, and cohesive bond failures were prevalent. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and evaluate the long-term effectiveness of different lingual retainers.

Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Orthodontic Retention of Third Molars After Extraction of First or Second Molars

This paper explores the clinical efficacy of orthodontic retention of third molars after extraction of the first or second molars. Studies show that the use of the second molar near the movement to replace the first molar, retain the third molar although need a long treatment time and higher treatment cost, but promote the gap of tissue regeneration, preserve healthy natural teeth, restore occlusal stability, but also can avoid the late repair of the first molar or second molar. In addition, the second molar after moving near the third molar is also conducive to the eruption of the third molar, maximizing the use of the third molar, to form a healthy and complete functional tooth line. Therefore, For patients with severe removal of the first or second molars, poor prognosis, severe periapical disease, and loss of the first or second molars, the treatment method of replacing the second molar for the first molar and the third molar for the second molar can be an effective treatment option.

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy to Minimize Orthodontic Relapse in Rabbits.

The purpose of the present study was to discover how hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) could reduce orthodontic relapse by altering the expressions of hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), type I collagen (Col I), and matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) in the gingival supracrestal fibers in rabbits. This study involved 44 male rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) randomly divided into the normal group (K0), the orthodontic group without HBOT (K1), and the orthodontic group with HBOT (K2). Following orthodontic separation of the two upper central incisors, a retention phase and relapse assessment were performed. The HBOT was performed for a period of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 days after retention. HIF-1α transcription was assessed employing real-time polymerase chain reaction, whereas Col I and MMP-1 proteins were examined using immunohistochemistry. The orthodontic relapse was measured clinically using a digital caliper. We used the one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc for multiple comparisons to measure differences between pairs of means; a p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. HBOT significantly increased the HIF-1α mRNA expression (p = 0.0140), increased Col I (p = 0.0043) and MMP-1 (p = 0.0068) on the tensioned and pressured side of the gingival supracrestal fibers, respectively, and clinically decreased the relapse (p = 3.75 × 10-40). HBOT minimizes orthodontic relapse by influencing HIF-1α expression, collagen synthesis (Col I), and degradation (MMP-1). This result suggests that HBOT has the potential to be used as an adjunctive method in the orthodontic retention phase.

Blanket or tailored prescription of retainers in orthodontics: a questionnaire-based study.

To explore retainer protocols and how they are influenced by orthodontic presentation and the nature of occlusal correction. A prepiloted 45-item online questionnaire targeting orthodontists was developed. The questionnaire covered clinical preferences in terms of retainer type, fabrication, and follow-up during retention; the clinical indications for adjunctive surgical procedures; and the use of active designs to mitigate relapse in specific malocclusions. A total of 206 responses were obtained. The majority of the respondents prescribed maxillary removable and mandibular fixed retainers, with almost half (49.1%) reviewing patients for more than 1 year primarily in person (95.1%). The majority prescribed vacuum-formed (69.6%) 1-mm-thick (44.3%) retainers. Only 37.3% were aware of the type of material used, with polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolymer, followed by polypropylene, being the most common. Hawley retainers were preferred following nonsurgical maxillary expansion and with suboptimal interdigitation. A preference for clear retainers and/or fixed retainers was found in open-bite cases and deep-bite cases. Supracrestal fiberotomy was prescribed commonly (61.1%) for rotations greater than 90°. No retainer was rarely prescribed except after the correction of an anterior crossbite. Blanket prescription of orthodontic retention is common, with limited awareness of clear plastic retainer materials. Future trials evaluating the effectiveness of approaches for retainer prescription based on the presenting malocclusion would be timely.

Systematic Review Regarding The Difference In Dental Plaque Accumulation Associated With Fixed Orthodontic Retainers And Vacuum Formed Removable Retainer.

Abstract Introduction: Orthodontic retention is fundamental to prevent tooth relapse after the treatment. Plaque accumulation is a serious concern, affecting periodontal health. In this study, the effects of fixed retainers with removable vacuum formed retainers on plaque accumulation by evaluating the Plaque Indices were compared. Aim of the study: The aim of the present systematic review is to comprehend which orthodontic retainer between fixed retainers and the removable vacuum formed retainers results in the least amount of plaque accumulation. Material and Methods: For evaluation a literature review was carried out by all the reviewers by consulting PubMed, ScienceDirect, The Lancet, Sciendo, and Google Scholars electronic databases for biomedical and health literature. The articles were selected from 2017 onwards with the restriction of the English language. Results: 5 studies were selected, reporting on a total of 249 patients both males and females who after debonding orthodontic appliances followed up with either a fixed or vacuum formed retainer. Conclusion: Within their limits, the results seem to show that patients who wear Vacuum Formed Retainers tend to accumulate less plaque than the ones that wear Fixed Retainers. However, subsequent studies are required to address this matter and draw a definitive conclusion.