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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2026Pooled it
- The prevalence of the failure of fixed orthodontic bonded retainers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2023Pooled it
- Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Transfer accuracy of three different virtually designed CAD/CAM retainers - baseline results of a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Comparison of treatment stability among maxillary round multi-strand wire, chairside rectangular chain and vacuum formed retainers: a randomized clinical trial.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Trial
- Gingival health and relapse tendency: a split mouth randomized controlled trial of two positions of lower fixed retainers.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Stability, survival, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization of CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 2-year follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2024Trial
- 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
- CAD/CAM nitinol bonded retainer versus a chairside rectangular-chain bonded retainer: A multicentre randomised controlled trial.Journal of orthodontics · 2023Trial
- Post-treatment stability after 5 years of retention with vacuum-formed and bonded retainers-a randomized controlled trial.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
- Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability.The Angle orthodontist · 2021Trial
- Strategies for improving compliance with removable retention appliances: A qualitative study.Journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional stability during orthodontic retention: A comparative analysis of conventional, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent fixed retainers versus removable appliances.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Are arch width measurements from Invisalign arch width tables reliable?Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Clinical integration and utilization patterns of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed lingual retainers: A national survey of orthodontists.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the performance of orthodontic retainers using different surface protocols: an in vitro study.Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- Review
- Orthodontic camouflage treatment for a patient with bilateral cleft lip and palate, bilateral crossbite, and microdontic maxillary lateral incisors.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
29059289What 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.