Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27459974›Full record

SynthesisProgress in orthodontics2016

The effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers: a systematic review.

Dalya Al-Moghrabi, Nikolaos Pandis, Padhraig S Fleming

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Progress in orthodontics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Which orthodontic retainer provides the best stabilization? : Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026
    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. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dalya Al-MoghrabiBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 2AD, UK. d.almoghrabi@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6733-748X
Nikolaos PandisDental School, Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Padhraig S FlemingBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 2AD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn the view of the widespread acceptance of indefinite retention, it is important to determine the effects of fixed and removable orthodontic retainers on periodontal health, survival and failure rates of retainers, cost-effectiveness, and impact of orthodontic retainers on patient-reported outcomes.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was undertaken based on a defined electronic and gray literature search strategy ( PROSPERO: CRD42015029169). The following databases were searched (up to October 2015); MEDLINE via OVID, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, BBO, ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis database. Randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series (minimum sample size of 20) with minimum follow-up periods of 6 months reporting periodontal health, survival and failure rates of retainers, cost-effectiveness, and impact of orthodontic retainers on patient-reported outcomes were identified. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of included trials.

resultsTwenty-four studies were identified, 18 randomized controlled trials and 6 prospective cohort studies. Of these, only 16 were deemed to be of high quality. Meta-analysis was unfeasible due to considerable clinical heterogeneity and variations in outcome measures. The mean failure risk for mandibular stainless steel fixed retainers bonded from canine to canine was 0.29 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.26, 0.33) and for those bonded to canines only was 0.25 (95 % CI: 0.16, 0.33). A meta-regression suggested that failure of fixed stainless steel mandibular retainers was not directly related to the period elapsed since placement (P = 0.938).

conclusionFurther well-designed prospective studies are needed to elucidate the benefits and potential harms associated with orthodontic retainers.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisOrthodontic RetainersTreatment OutcomeHumansMandibleMeta-Analysis as TopicNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicOrthodontics, CorrectivePeriodontal DiseasesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStainless SteelStainless SteelCost-effectivenessFailure rateOrthodontic retainerPatient-reported outcomesPeriodontalSurvival rate

Identifiers

PMID27459974
PMCPMC4961661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.