ArticleBritish dental journal2015
A multicentre audit of GDPs knowledge of orthodontic retention.
Article in British dental journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cross-Sectional Survey of Orthodontic Retention Practices and Opinions Among General Dental Practitioners in Australia.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Dutch dentists' involvement in orthodontic retention: monitoring, opinions, competence and communication gaps.European journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Orthodontic retention experience of university students: A qualitative study.Journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
- Orthodontic retention and the role of the general dental practitioner.British dental journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2015
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine GDP knowledge and willingness to supervise orthodontic retention and provide replacements retainers.
designAn audit sampling GDPs from six centres within England (Bradford, Cambridge, Burton-Upon-Trent, Croyden, Norwich and Plymouth). A gold standard of 100% of GDPs should be aware of commonly used retainers and be able to provide replacements was selected.
methodOverall, 1,053 postal questionnaires were sent to local GDPs. The questions covered knowledge and provision of various retainers, practitioner background and education. GDP satisfaction with the information provided by the orthodontist at discharge was also explored.
resultsFive hundred and two questionnaires were received (response rate of 48%). The majority of GDPs (64%) were trained in the UK. Awareness of vacuum-formed, Hawley and fixed retainers was generally high. A significantly smaller number of GDPs were willing to prescribe, fit or review the retainers. The most common reasons for reluctance in provision were insufficient knowledge, financial and time constraints. Over two thirds (72%) of GDPs would like further training on retention.
conclusionThis audit highlights a need for increased training at undergraduate and postgraduate levels to update practitioners about contemporary retention practice. Better communication is required from orthodontists to GDPs to ensure that on discharge the dentist is aware of the retainer type and retention regime.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26068162What 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.