ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2019
Comparison of Two Retention Appliances with Respect to Clinical Effectiveness.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- Review
- "Comparing the effectiveness, acceptability and oral hygiene status between vacuum formed retainer and Begg's retainer": a pilot study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Survival analysis of three types of maxillary and mandibular bonded orthodontic retainers: a retrospective cohort.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers-Our Clinical Experience.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers during the retention period.
methodsA total of 30 subjects whose fixed orthodontic treatment results were evaluated according to the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III Objective Grading system were included in this study. After the removal of orthodontic attachments, the study participants were equally divided into two retention protocols: upper-lower Essix and upper-lower Hawley. The subjects were instructed to wear their retainers full time for 6 months, except during meals, and during nights only for 6 months. The clinical effectiveness of the retainers was evaluated according to the overjet, overbite, maxillary, and mandibular intercanine widths, intermolar widths, arch lengths, irregularity indexes, and lateral cephalometric measurements. All dental model and lateral cephalometric measurements were performed by the same investigator during three periods: pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention.
resultsThe overjet, overbite, maxillary, and mandibular intercanine widths; intermolar widths; and arch lengths and lateral cephalometric measurements were not statistically significantly different between the groups and identified time periods. Although the maxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes increased from the post-treatment to post-retention periods, the difference was not statistically significant. Pre-treatment, post-treatment, and post-retention lateral cephalometric measurements were not statistically significantly different between and within the groups.
conclusionAccording to the results of a repeated-measures analysis of variance with two factors, and although an increase was found in the maxillary and mandibular irregularity indexes, the clinical effectiveness of Essix and Hawley retainers was found to be similar during the retention period.
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.