Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29059289›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of orthodontics2018

Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 1: stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction outcomes after 12 months.

Katherine Forde, Madeleine Storey, Simon J Littlewood, Paul Scott, Friedy Luther, Jing Kang

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of orthodontics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04389879 (CAD/CAM Fixed Retainers vs. Conventional Multistranded Fixed Retainers in Orthodontic Patients. Comparison of Stability, Retainer Failure Rate, Adverse Effects, Cost-effectiveness, and Patient Satisfaction. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT04389879 naunknown statusnot on this map

CAD/CAM Fixed Retainers vs. Conventional Multistranded Fixed Retainers in Orthodontic Patients. Comparison of Stability, Retainer Failure Rate, Adverse Effects, Cost-effectiveness, and Patient Satisfaction. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2018 to 2025Enrolled126ConditionsRelapseArmsBonding of either CAD/CAM or conventional multistranded stainless steel fixed retainer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katherine FordeHolywell House Orthodontics, Hinckley, Leicestershire, UK.
Madeleine StoreyDepartment of Orthodontics, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, UK.
Simon J LittlewoodDepartment of Orthodontics, St Luke's Hospital, Bradford, UK.
Paul ScottDepartment of Orthodontics, Montagu Hospital, Mexborough, Doncaster and Bassetlaw NHS Trust, UK.
Friedy LutherSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Orthodontics, The Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Jing KangDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is a shortage of evidence on the best type of retainer. Objectives: Evaluate upper and lower bonded retainers (BRs) versus upper and lower vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) over 12 months, in terms of stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction. Trial design: Two-arm parallel group multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods: Sixty consecutive patients completing fixed appliance therapy and requiring retainers were recruited from 3 hospital departments. They were randomly allocated to either upper and lower labial segment BRs (n = 30) or upper and lower full-arch VFRs (n = 30). Primary outcome was stability. Secondary outcomes were retainer survival and patient satisfaction. A random sequence of treatment allocation was computer-generated and implemented by sealing in sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes independently prepared in advance. Patients, operators and outcome could not be blinded due to the nature of the intervention. Results: Thirty patients received BRs (median [Mdn] age 16 years, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 2) and 30 received VFRs (Mdn age 17 years, IQR = 4). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At 12 months, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences in post-treatment change of maxillary labial segment alignment (BR = 1.1 mm, IQR = 1.56, VFR = 0.76 mm, IQR = 1.55, P = 0.61); however, there was greater post-treatment change in the mandibular VFR group (BR = 0.77 mm, IQR = 1.46, VFR = 1.69mm, IQR = 2.00, P = 0.008). The difference in maxillary retainer survival rates were statistically non-significant, P = 0.34 (BR = 63.6%, 239.3 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 73.3%, 311.1 days, 95% CI = 278.3-344.29). The mandibular BR had a lower survival rate (P = 0.01) at 12 months (BR = 50%, 239.3 days 95% CI = 191.1-287.5, VFR = 80%, 324.9 days 95% CI = 295.4-354.4). More subjects with VFRs reported discomfort (P = 0.002) and speech difficulties (P = 0.004) but found them easier to clean than those with BRs (P = 0.001). Limitations: Results are after 1 year and we do not know how much the removable retainers were worn. Conclusions: After 1 year, there is no evidence of a significant difference in stability or retainer survival in the maxilla. In the mandible, BRs are more effective at maintaining mandibular labial segment alignment, but have a higher failure rate. In comparison with patients wearing VFRs, patients wearing BRs reported that they caused less interference with speech, required less compliance to wear them, and were more comfortable to wear than VFRs. Patients found the BRs harder to keep clean. Trial registration: The trail was not registered.

Indexed as

Orthodontic RetainersAdolescentDental OcclusionFemaleHumansMaleMalocclusionMandibleMaxillaOrthodontic Appliance DesignOrthodontic Appliances, FixedOrthodontics, CorrectivePatient CompliancePatient SatisfactionVacuumYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29059289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.