Can vacuum-formed retainers maintain arch dimensions and alignment compared to Hawley and fixed bonded retainers after treatment with fixed appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Different types of retention appliances have been proposed over the years, but their effectiveness in maintaining arch dimensions and alignment after orthodontic treatment is still unclear.

Aim: To assess the efficacy of vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) in preserving arch widths, arch length, and anterior alignment in maxillary and mandibular arches, compared to removable Hawley retainers (HRs) or fixed bonded retainers (FBRs). Search methods: unrestricted literature search of five major databases up to March 2024.

Selection criteria: randomized/non-randomized clinical studies comparing VFRs to removable HRs or FBRs.

Data collection and analysis: after duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, random effects meta-analyses of standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were performed, followed by meta-regressions, sensitivity analyses, and assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.

Results: Twenty-two prospective studies (4 non-randomized and 18 randomized controlled trials) involving 1797 patients (mean age 17.01 years, 38.3% males) were included. No significant differences were found in the intercanine width, intermolar width, and arch length between VFRs and HRs, in both arches (P > 0.05). However, VFRs were statistically more effective than HRs in terms of Little's irregularity scores (LII) in the maxilla (eight studies; SMD = -0.42; 95% CI: -1.03 to -0.09; P = 0.02; I2 = 73.4%) but not in the mandible (P = 0.12). No significant differences were reported for all considered outcomes between VFRs and FBRs in in both arches (P > 0.05), except for lower LII, where VFRs were significantly less efficient (eight studies; SMD = 1.49; 95% CI = 0.26-2.7; P = 0.02; I2 = 93%). Follow-up times, risk of bias, and wire type (of FBRs) did not show statistically significant effects on outcome variables. Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the findings for including non-randomized and postretention studies. The certainty in these estimates was from moderate to low due to the risk of bias and inconsistency.

Conclusions: Low to moderate quality evidence indicates that VFRs are as effective as HRs in maintaining arch widths, length, and alignment. Low-quality evidence found similar efficacy between VFRs and FBRs, with FBRs being statistically more effective at maintaining lower arch alignment, but the difference was not clinically significant.

Registration: PROSPERO registration (CRD42024518433).