Comparison of periodontal status and failure rates with different retainer bonding methods and adhesives: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Objectives: This single-center, randomized clinical trial evaluated and compared retainer bonding among different methods and adhesives in terms of periodontal status and failure rates.Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients from the orthodontic department of Pamukkale University were randomly assigned to the following 4 groups: group 1, direct bonding (DB) with two-step adhesive; group 2, DB with one-step adhesive; group 3, indirect bonding (IDB) with two-step adhesive; and group 4, IDB with one-step adhesive. Eligibility criteria included good finishing results and oral hygiene, no periodontal or systemic problems, and no missing anterior teeth or restorations. Randomization was carried out using computer-generated random numbers with allocation concealment by opaque, sealed envelopes. The main outcomes were plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and calculus index (CI) recorded at bonding, 6 months (T1), and 12 months (T2) after bonding. A secondary outcome was failure rate. The periodontal outcome assessor was blinded. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and chi-square test.Results: PI and GI increased with time in all study groups, but there were no significant differences among groups at any time point. A small amount of calculus was observed in all study groups, with the increase in CI for group 3 significantly greater at the T2-T1 time interval (P , .05). There were no significant differences between groups for 12-month failure rates.Conclusions: The one-step retainer adhesive was similar in terms of periodontal status and failure rate. Therefore, a one-step adhesive can be used during bonding, regardless of technique. (Angle Orthod. 2022;93:57-65.)