Search

Retention constitutes a fundamental phase of orthodontic treatment, of which the patient must be made aware from the outset. Retention, which can be fixed or movable, has the task of maintaining over time and stabilising the results obtained during treatment. This study assessed the efficacy of using removable restraints versus fixed solutions for maintaining long-term outcomes. A comprehensive search across major databases—Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus—used ‘relapse’ and ‘orthodontic’ as keywords to gather articles on relapse discussions. The primary focus was relapsed cases in post-fixed orthodontic therapy. Both fixed and removable retainer systems prove effective in preserving orthodontic achievements. While fixed devices require regular wire integrity checks, mobile devices require patient compliance, proper usage, and a recommended wear time. Studies indicate that fixed retainers are generally successful, with relapse rates varying based on the retainer type. Full-time use of removable devices surpasses night-only wear. Vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers offer similar effectiveness. Fixed retainers excel in long-term alignment stability, whereas removable ones have higher failure rates yet remain beneficial.

The article describes the orthodontically treated case of a 25-year-old patient with skeletal and dental class III malocclusion, anterior crossbite, which caused functional and aesthetic problems, occlusal trauma, and incisor wear. Treatment with transparent aligners was proposed to meet the patient’s needs, using the sequential distalization protocol. While sequential distalization is well documented for class II malocclusion treatment in maxillary arch teeth, further investigations are necessary for class III malocclusions. In fact, lower teeth movements are more complex due to mandibular bone density and the presence of the third molars, which are often extracted to perform distalization. In addition, the use of intermaxillary elastics helps control the proclination of the anterior teeth as a reaction to distalizing forces. At the end of the treatment, the patient reached molar and canine class I and positive overjet and overbite. The inclination of lower incisors and the interincisal angle have improved, resulting in aesthetic and functional enhancement.

The inclusion of both maxillary permanent central incisors is uncommon. This condition compromises face aesthetics, phonation and masticatory function. Therefore, early diagnosis is essential to avoid complications and failures. There are various reasons for inclusion, but supernumerary teeth are the leading cause. Early causes of removal and rapid expansion of the palate determine a high probability of success with the spontaneous eruption of the impacted elements. However, it is often necessary to proceed with a surgical–orthodontic treatment. The inclination of teeth in relation to the midline and the root maturation degree determine prognosis and therapeutic timing. In this case report, the orthopantomogram (OPG) X-ray of a 9-year-old boy revealed two impacted supernumerary teeth in the anterior maxillary region, preventing the eruption of the permanent upper central incisors. The impacted supernumerary teeth were surgically removed at different times. A straight wire multibrackets technique associated with a fixed palatal appliance was used. The palatal appliance featured an osteomucous resin support at the level of the retroincisal papilla. Subsequently, surgical exposure was carried out using the closed eruption technique and elastic traction, bringing 11 and 21 back into the arch.

Background: The management of a hyperdivergent growth pattern is one of the most challenging in orthodontics and different treatments are advocated. The present study analyses the effectiveness of elastodontic therapy with AMCOP® devices in treating children with hyperdivergent class II malocclusion and the effect on the upper airway patency. Methods: The study group included 21 patients (10 males and 11 females, mean age 8.22 ± 1.17 years) with a hyperdivergent growth and a class II malocclusion treated with AMCOP® devices. Cephalometric analysis was performed before treatment (T0) and after treatment (T1). Results: After treatment, the cephalometric analysis revealed a correction of the class II malocclusion and a modification of the growth pattern with a divergence reduction. The improvement of the upper airway space was also observed. Conclusion: The elastodontic therapy effectively corrected hyperdivergent class II malocclusion in growing patients over a short period.