Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2011
A retrospective randomized double-blind comparison study of the effectiveness of Hawley vs vacuum-formed retainers.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Assessment of the effect of vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers on periodontal health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.Progress in orthodontics · 2022Trial
- One-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers.The Angle orthodontist · 2022Trial
- Speech effects of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers by acoustic analysis: A single-center randomized controlled trial.The Angle orthodontist · 2017Trial
- Assessing the Impact of Removable Orthodontic Retainers on Oral Health Related Quality of Life: Non-Randomized Clinical Trial.Frontiers in dentistry · 2025Article
- The Common Retention Practices Among Orthodontists from Different Countries.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of relapse with thermoplastic retainers equipped with microsensors.The Angle orthodontist · 2022Article
- Removable orthodontic retainers: practical considerations.British dental journal · 2021Review
- The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers-Our Clinical Experience.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Level of satisfaction in the use of the wraparound Hawley and thermoplastic maxillary retainers.The Angle orthodontist · 2020Article
- Comparison of Two Retention Appliances with Respect to Clinical Effectiveness.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2019Article
- The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2018Article
- Survey on Retention Protocols Among Turkish Orthodontists.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2016Article
- Anterior tooth alignment: A comparison of orthodontic retention regimens 5 years posttreatment.The Angle orthodontist · 2015Article
- Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare Hawley with vacuum-formed retainers. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty-two patients who had received treatment with upper and lower fixed appliances were randomly assigned either a Hawley or a vacuum-formed retainer. Study models were fabricated for each patient on day of debond and 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months after debond. Using a specially constructed pantograph, four variables were measured for each set of models at each of these time periods. These were upper and lower intermolar widths, intercanine widths, arch length, and a modified Little's index of irregularity. Method error was determined by repeating the measurements on 10 sets of models.
resultsFor each of the variables under test and at each of the four time periods, there were no statistically significant differences (α = .05) between each of the two retainers, vacuum-formed and Hawley.
conclusionThe degree of relapse that is likely to occur following a course of fixed appliance therapy is unlikely to be affected by the choice of retainer, vacuum-formed or Hawley. Therefore, when deciding on the type of retainer to be fitted following fixed appliance therapy, other factors such as cost may play a more significant role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.