ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2015
Anterior tooth alignment: A comparison of orthodontic retention regimens 5 years posttreatment.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stability of maxillary anterior teeth during retention and 1 year after removal of retention-an RCT on adolescents retained with two different bonded retainers and a vacuum-formed retainer.European journal of orthodontics · 2023Trial
- Stability, survival, and patient satisfaction with CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 6-month follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled clinical trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2023Trial
- Cost analysis of two types of fixed maxillary retainers and a removable vacuum-formed maxillary retainer: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2022Trial
- Orthodontic emergencies in a postgraduate clinic: a retrospective analysis.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the NOLA Dry Field device as an isolation system for bonding lower lingual retainers.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Striving for Perfection: How Stable Is Orthodontic Treatment When Excellent Outcomes Are Achieved? A 9-Year Post-Treatment Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The Effect of Third Molars on the Mandibular Anterior Crowding Relapse-A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Orthodontic Retention-Protocols and Materials-A Questionnaire Pilot Study among Polish Practitioners.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Orthodontic retention protocols: an evidence-based overview.British dental journal · 2021Article
- The influence of 3x3 bonded retainer on anterior crowding relapse in mandibular incisor extraction cases.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2021Article
- Orthodontist and periodontist's knowledge, attitudes and aspects of clinical practice, regarding fixed lower orthodontic retainers.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2021Observational
- Orthodontic Class II:1 treatment-efficiency and outcome quality of Herbst-multibracket appliance therapy.Clinical oral investigations · 2018Article
- Stability of anterior tooth alignment 10 years out of retention.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2017Article
- Relapse and inadvertent tooth movement post orthodontic treatment in individuals with fixed retainers: A review.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess orthodontic treatment outcome at debonding and at 3 and 5 years after orthodontic treatment and to investigate the influence of different retention protocols on anterior tooth alignment. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index, 169 patients (74 boys, 95 girls) were analyzed at four stages: pretreatment (T0), posttreatment (T1), 3 years posttreatment (T3), and 5 years posttreatment (T5). The PAR anterior component scores (ACSs) were compared between groups with different retention protocols. In the maxilla, protocols were removable retainer until T3 (MAX1), removable and fixed retainer until T3 (MAX2), and removable retainer until T3 and fixed retainer until T5 (MAX3). In the mandible, protocols were no retainer (MAND1), fixed 3-3 retainer until T3 (MAND2), and fixed 3-3 retainer until T5 (MAND3).
resultsMean weighted improvement in PAR score was 88.3% at T1, 86.4% at T3, and 82.1% at T5. The ACS for the maxilla showed no significant differences between the retention protocols at any time point. In the mandible, the group without retention showed a gradual but not significant deterioration in ACS throughout the posttreatment period. At T5 there was a significant difference in ACS between the group that had the retainer removed at T3 and the group that kept the retainer.
conclusionThe 5-year treatment outcome, as measured by the PAR Index, was good. Stability of the maxillary anterior alignment 5 years posttreatment did not appear to be influenced by choice of retention protocol. Mandibular anterior alignment was significantly better for the group using a fixed retainer compared with the group where the retainer was removed 3 years posttreatment.
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.