# Retrospective Study Regarding Orthodontic Retention Complications in Clinical Practice
## 4 Discussions
[6] demonstrated that multistranded wire retainers fractured more frequently than the round wire retainers, even if the difference was not statistically significant (\(p=0.352\)). The same authors also concluded that using multistrand wire retainer, the distal surfaces of the lower anterior teeth have more plaque accumulations than using round wire retainers, even if they were more efficient for incisor alignment. The reasons for the failure of fixed retainers are separations between the wire and the bonding material used or between the tooth's enamel and the bonding material [12], the wire's breakage, or the inadvertent tooth movement with fixed lingual retainers [46]. [PERSON] et al. [47] demonstrated that polyethylene VFRs are not indicated in clinical situations when greater wear resistance is needed; in such conditions, it is better to use polymethyl-methacrylate-based devices like Hawley retainers that are more resistant to wear and breakage. Their results support the results of our study. The patient's non-compliance in case of VFRs will also lead to unfavorable consequences for the periodontium, relapse of orthodontic treatments. Only a third of men declare that they wear them every night, and the common reason men wear them lesser is that they forget. Women, on the other hand, seem to have a greater sense of responsibility, almost a half say they wear VFRs every night, and the common reasons for wearing less are they forgot or did not like how it (them) felt. [PERSON] et al. [48] found in a comparative study between VFRs and HRs better compliance with VFRs for the first two years after debonding. Compliance with VFRs decreased much faster than with HRs; at any time longer than two years after debonding, the patient's compliance was greater with HRs, and overall compliance was better with Hawley retainers. These results discourage orthodontists who recommend VFRs instead of Hawley retainers. The preference to recommend VFRs for esthetic reasons was not justified because most patients were not concerned about the esthetic aspect of the retainer, or even if so, the perceptions of VFRs and HRs were equal [48]. In another study, [PERSON] and [PERSON] found that 15% of patients with VFRs who did not comply reported the loss of the retainers. For those who did not comply with mobile retainers, the majority said it affected their eating (84.3%), speech (56.9%), comfort (47.1%), and breath odor (43.1%) [49]. The compliance decreased with increasing the time since the fixed orthodontic appliance was de-bonded [49]. The participants were more compliant with HRs than with VFRs. However, VFRs provide better relapse prevention of incisor irregularity than HRs in both arches so, they are more useful in orthodontic practice [50]. The results proved strong correlations between male and female groups regarding the two investigated plaque indices. Another study comparatively investigates the prevalence of dental plaque in adults by using the TMQHPI and Loe-Silness gingivitis index found no significant differences for dental plaque and gingivitis scores irrespective of gender [51]. Our results are different from other findings of a review article published in 2021 that concluded men are more likely to ignore oral health, have poorer oral hygiene habits than women, and have higher rates of periodontal disease [52]. Women demonstrate better oral health behaviors than men. Men and women disproportionately develop periodontal diseases because of biological and gender-related reasons that include immune system factors, hormone differences, and poorer oral hygiene habits of men [52]. According to the initial orthodontic anomaly, those with a history of class III have more plaque accumulation, and class II/1 had the most problems related to detachment/damage of fixed retainers. Comparing the two types of orthodontic retainers, both mobile and fixed ones have advantages and disadvantages.