The objectives of this study were to evaluate retention procedures and protocols which are used by the orthodontists in Lithuania and to identify commonly used types of dental retainers. One hundred seven questionnaires in total with 28 multiple-choice questions were sent to all members of the Lithuanian Orthodontic Society. The questionnaire was organized into eight sections representing specific information about socio-demographic status of the respondents, selection of a retention system, details of commonly used fixed and removable retainers, the duration of the retention period, supervision of the retainers, instructions for patients, and necessity of common retention guidelines. The overall response rate was 75.7%. All of the respondents prescribed retainers after the orthodontic therapy. More than 40% of the respondents combined fixed and removable retainers in different clinical situations, but the first-choice option after an expansion of the maxillary dental arch was the removable retainer (54.3%); meanwhile, a fixed retainer was used after a correction of any rotations of the mandibular anterior teeth (49.4%). The Hawley retainer was preferred by 90.1% of the respondents for a maxillary dental arch, and 74.1% of them preferred it for a mandibular dental arch. The most preferable fixed retainer was the retainer bonded to all six anterior teeth (in the upper dental arch—by 71.6%; in the lower one—by 80.2%). There was no consensus on the duration of a retention period. Most of the orthodontists checked up retainers three times during the first year (fixed ones—by 42.0%; removable ones—by 30.0%) and once per year after the 1-year retention period (fixed ones—by 44.4%; removable ones—by 40.7%). All orthodontists gave instructions for taking care of an orthodontic retainer. It was observed that the orthodontists with less than 10 years of experience used a protocol based on the skills learned during their postgraduate studies, while orthodontists with more than 10 years of experience used retention procedures based on their orthodontic work practice (p < 0.05). A combination of fixed and removable retainers was the most often used in an orthodontic retention. Evidence-based guidelines are desired for a common retention protocol.

Background and Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize currently available data of published articles that have investigated the post-treatment status of impacted maxillary central incisors (ICI) treated by the surgical-orthodontic approach. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Oral Health Group’s Trials Register, and ScienceDirect electronic databases were systematically searched with no publication date restrictions up to January 2021. Data assessing the status of ICI after combined surgical-orthodontic treatment and forced eruption duration were extracted, and the quality of the studies was evaluated. Results: In total, 7074 studies were identified, of which 42 articles were assessed for eligibility through full-text evaluation. Seven included studies (five retrospective studies, one randomized clinical trial, and one prospective clinical trial) met the inclusion criteria, representing 211 patients with unilaterally impacted maxillary incisors. The risk of bias ranged from moderate to high. The results show that the root length of immature ICIs increased significantly but remained shorter than that of homonym teeth at post-treatment. Periodontal parameters of treated ICIs were in a clinically acceptable range. Measurements of the alveolar bone showed a reduction of bone thickness and support. The average forced eruption duration ranged from 8.0 ± 4.5 to 14.41 ± 4.03 months. Conclusions: Based on existing evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the surgical-orthodontic treatment affected the post-treatment status of ICI; however, the current literature is insufficient to draw concrete conclusions. Further well-conducted multi-center randomized studies with a large sample are needed to confirm this statement.

This systematic review aimed to assess salivary flow and pH changes at various stages of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. A comprehensive searches in electronic databases, including Medline, ResearchGate, Web of Science, SAGE Journals, Cochrane Oral Health Group’s Trials Register, and ScienceDirect, without any publication date restrictions until January 2022 was conducted. The Pre-ferred Reporting Items for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA 2020 version) protocol was adopted and the risk of bias assessments were performed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. Out of 4902 articles, 25 were fully evaluated, and seven studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The results showed that orthodontic treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances increased the stimulated salivary flow rate during various stages of treatment. However, the unstimulated salivary flow rate showed different changes. Furthermore, stimulated salivary pH increased, whereas unstimulated salivary pH significantly decreased, depending on the specific period of orthodontic treatment. Overall, fixed orthodontic appliances have an impact on salivary flow rate and pH during different stages of treatment. Nevertheless, the current literature is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. More well-designedrandomized studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm these findings.