EFFICACY OF TEMPORARY FIXED RETENTION FOLLOWING ...
EFFICACY OF TEMPORARY FIXED RETENTION FOLLOWING ...
EFFICACY OF TEMPORARY FIXED RETENTION FOLLOWING ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW <strong>OF</strong> THE LITERATURE<br />
Historical Review of Retention and Relapse<br />
No other issue in orthodontics, with the possible exception of extractions,<br />
seems to receive as much attention as retention. Retention, as it pertains to<br />
orthodontics, has been defined by Moyers (1973, p 442) as “the holding of teeth<br />
following orthodontic treatment in the treated position for the period of time<br />
necessary for the maintenance of the result” (Blake and Bibby 1998, p 299). Over<br />
time, there have been different schools of thought regarding the prevention of<br />
relapse (Graber 1994). Henry Kaplan (1988) devoted a review article to the issue<br />
of retention. He noted that the problems associated with retention continue<br />
today and are just as debated and relevant now as they ever have been despite<br />
the considerable amount of attention the subject has received. Much of the early<br />
historical references found in this section were taken from Kaplan’s review of<br />
retention and also from George Huckaba’s analysis of relapse (1952).<br />
Although early clinicians recognized changes in the dentition following<br />
treatment, Evens in 1854 seems to be the first to mention the need for some type<br />
of retention. Emerson Angell in 1860 likewise recognized a need for retention<br />
following the expansion of the maxillary median suture (Weinberger 1926).<br />
Alfred Coleman (1865) was the first to describe the effects of muscular pressure<br />
on the dentition, in essence relapse, and one year later, C. A. Marvin described<br />
the physiologic reasons for retention (Weinberger 1926).<br />
Around the beginning of the twentieth century, the issue of retention had<br />
become widely recognized, and many prominent clinicians and authors such as<br />
Guilford (1898), Angle (1900), Lischer (1912), and Dewey (1914) included<br />
chapters dealing with retention in their texts. Kingsley (1908) recognized that<br />
there were challenges associated with retention, and admitted that regarding the<br />
retention issue, “I am agnostic, I don’t know, in each and every individual case I<br />
do not know” (Kaplan 1988, p 327). It was the opinion of Edward H. Angle<br />
(1900, 1907) that achieving a normal occlusion as a result of orthodontic<br />
treatment was the most crucial component necessary in achieving long-term<br />
stability, even at the expense of an expanded dental arch. In contrast, McCauley<br />
(1944) promoted maintaining inter-canine and inter-molar widths of the original<br />
malocclusion. In accordance with McCauley, Tweed (1944, 1945) also recognized<br />
the lack of stability in cases where arch expansion had occurred, and Tweed<br />
went on to advocate the extraction of teeth in order to prevent this. Tweed,<br />
along with Nance (1947), also proposed that the most stable position for<br />
mandibular incisors was upright over their supporting basal bone.<br />
3