ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2016
Survey on Retention Protocols Among Turkish Orthodontists.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitude, and awareness on the protocols and trends in orthodontic retention among dental students.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research · 2022Article
- Approaches of Turkish Dentists in Cases of Orthodontic Lingual Retainer Failures.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to identify general retention protocols practiced by Turkish orthodontist and to compare the results obtained with those of similar studies in Western countries.
methodsThe Web-based survey consisted of 29 questions: 3 to identify the demographic characteristics of the participants and 26 to examine how orthodontists manage the retention phase. Data was interpreted by descriptive statistical methods such as the median test, the Mann-Whitney U-test and logistic regression analysis.
resultsThe survey return rate was 73.8%. Pretreatment malocclusion status (87%), oral hygiene status (78%), and presence of third molars (63%) were reported to be the most important factors in determining the type of retainer. Bonded retainers, either alone (29% in maxilla and 34% in mandible) or supplemented with vacuum-formed retainers (27% in maxilla and 32% in mandible) were the most commonly used type of retainer. The preference for lifelong retention varied from 7% to 19%. Female orthodontists scheduled the first appointment after debonding sooner than male orthodontists (p<0.05). Orthodontists working in universities scheduled first appointments later than orthodontists working in private practices (p<0.05).
conclusionTurkish orthodontists still give importance to the third molars in their retention protocols, contrary to what is suggested in the current literature, and lifetime retention is rarely preferred as compared to other countries.
Indexed as
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.