ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2012
Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers.
Article in Korean journal of orthodontics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of different orthodontic retainers on dental arch stability and periodontal health: a systematic review with pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled 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
- Masticatory muscle activity and oral health-related quality of life in patients wearing clear thermoplastic versus wrap-around retainers : A randomized controlled trial.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2024Trial
- 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
- Computerized occlusal analysis of Essix and Hawley retainers used during the retention phase: a controlled clinical trial.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2020Trial
- Speech effects of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers by acoustic analysis: A single-center randomized controlled trial.The Angle orthodontist · 2017Trial
- Article
- Retention Force Comparison between Hawley and Vacuum-Formed Retainers in Orthodontic Treatment of Maxillary Arch: A Prospective, Non-randomized, Cohort Study over 6 Months : Comparing Retention Force of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers.Galen medical journal · 2024Article
- Predictability and Effectiveness of NuvolaBiomedicines · 2023Article
- Direct 3D-Printed Orthodontic Retainers. A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Assessment of the Bacterial Loads of Vacuum-Thermoformed Removable Retainers (VTRR) in Patients under Retention Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: conventional technique vs aesthetic approach.European oral research · 2022Article
- Evaluation of relapse with thermoplastic retainers equipped with microsensors.The Angle orthodontist · 2022Article
- Removable orthodontic retainers: practical considerations.British dental journal · 2021Review
- Computerized Assessment of Occlusion and Muscle Activity during Use of a Multilayer Clear Retainer: A Preliminary Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers-Our Clinical Experience.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Comparison of Dentoskeletal Changes, Esthetic, and Functional Efficacy of Conventional and Novel Esthetic Twin Block Appliances among Class II Growing Patients: A Pilot Study.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2020Article
- ORTHODONTIST CLINICAL EXPERIENCE AND CLINICAL SITUATION SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE THE RETENTION PROTOCOL - A SURVEY FROM CROATIA.Acta clinica Croatica · 2020Article
- Comparison of Two Retention Appliances with Respect to Clinical Effectiveness.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to compare the retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers.
methodsAdolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment at 2 centers were recruited for this study. Twenty-two patients (16 women and 6 men) wore Essix retainers (Essix group) while 20 (14 women and 6 men) wore Hawley retainers (Hawley group). The mean retention time was 1 year, and the mean follow-up recall time for both groups was 2 years. Two qualified dental examiners evaluated the blind patient data. Maxillary and mandibular dental casts and lateral cephalograms were analyzed at 4 stages: pretreatment (T1), post-treatment (T2), post-retention (T3), and follow-up (T4).
resultsThe results revealed that Essix appliances were more efficient in retaining the anterior teeth in the mandible during a 1-year retention period. The irregularity index increased in both arches in both groups after a 2-year post-retention period. The mandibular arch lengths increased during treatment and tended to return to their original value after retention in both groups; however, these changes were statistically significant only in the Hawley group. Cephalometric variables did not show any significant differences.
conclusionsThe retention characteristics of both Essix and Hawley retainers are similar.
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.