Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16437443›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.

S J Littlewood, D T Millett, B Doubleday, D R Bearn, H V Worthington

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. A Novel Double Arrowhead Auxetic Dental Splint for Avulsed Tooth Reimplantation.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S J LittlewoodSt Luke's Hospital, Orthodontic Department, Little Horton Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK, BD5 0NA. simonjlittlewood@aol.com
D T Millett
B Doubleday
D R Bearn
H V Worthington
Dundee Dental Hospital · GBSt. Luke's Hospital · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRetention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic (dental) braces. Without a phase of retention there is a tendency for the teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse almost every patient who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's (OHG) Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching of orthodontic journals was undertaken in keeping with the Cochrane OHG search programme. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs on children and adults, who have had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken, following orthodontic treatment with braces to prevent relapse. The outcomes were: how well the teeth were stabilised, survival of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. As no two studies compared the same retention strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies. MAIN

resultsFive trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. These trials all compared different interventions: circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with full-time removable retainer versus a full-time removable retainer alone; CSF combined with a nights-only removable retainer versus a nights-only removable retainer alone; removable Hawley retainer versus a clear overlay retainer; multistrand wire retainer versus a ribbon-reinforced resin bonded retainer; and three types of fixed retainers versus a removable retainer. There was weak unreliable evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (lower) (P < 0.001) and maxillary (upper) anterior segments (P < 0.001) when the CSF was used, compared with when it was not used. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley retainer than with a clear overlay retainer after 3 months. The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on retention at present. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this crucial area of orthodontic practice.

Indexed as

Orthodontic RetainersHumansOrthodontics, CorrectiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTooth Migration

Identifiers

PMID16437443
OpenAlexW4229881361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.