ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2018
The retention characteristics of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers with different retention protocols.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Thermoformed and 3D-Printed Retainers in Young Adults: Evaluation of Post-treatment Stability and Patient Satisfaction.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.Progress in orthodontics · 2022Trial
- One-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers.The Angle orthodontist · 2022Trial
- Computerized occlusal analysis of Essix and Hawley retainers used during the retention phase: a controlled clinical trial.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2020Trial
- Periodontal parameters of two types of 3 x 3 orthodontic retainer: a longitudinal study.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2019Trial
- 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
- Is wear time of Hawley retainers measured with microsensors related to mandibular arch stability?Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Article
- Retention Force Comparison between Hawley and Vacuum-Formed Retainers in Orthodontic Treatment of Maxillary Arch: A Prospective, Non-randomized, Cohort Study over 6 Months : Comparing Retention Force of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers.Galen medical journal · 2024Article
- "Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg's retainer": a pilot study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Direct 3D-Printed Orthodontic Retainers. A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluation of relapse with thermoplastic retainers equipped with microsensors.The Angle orthodontist · 2022Article
- The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers-Our Clinical Experience.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Comparison of Two Retention Appliances with Respect to Clinical Effectiveness.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two different protocols of wearing vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) with the standard protocol of wearing Hawley retainer in maintaining the results of orthodontic treatment. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis single-blind randomized clinical trial consisted of 90 patients who finished orthodontic treatment at the Department of Orthodontics of Mashhad Dental School, and required removable retainers. The participants were randomly divided into 3 groups and received the following treatments. Group 1: Hawley retainers (4 months full-time and then night-only); group 2: VFR_4M (4 months full-time and then night-only); group 3: VFR_1W (1 week full-time and then night-only). The study models were prepared after debond and at 4 and 8 months later, and intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length and the Little's irregularity index were compared between groups.
resultsNo significant differences were found in intercanine and intermolar widths between groups (
conclusionsBoth retention regimens of VFRs were more effective than Hawley retainer in maintaining arch length and tooth alignment in the upper arch. For better incisor alignment in the lower jaw, the patients should be advocated to wear VFR 4 months full-time and then at night instead of wearing Hawley retainer.
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.