Trial reportBMC oral health2020
"Clinical comparison of bond failure rate between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded orthodontic retainers- a randomized clinical trial".
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03881813 (Effectiveness of Two Types of Fixed Lingual Retainers in Preventing Mandibular Incisor Relapse), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 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.
Effectiveness of Two Types of Fixed Lingual Retainers in Preventing Mandibular Incisor Relapse
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of bonding protocols and physical-mechanical properties of composite on durability and failure rate of fixed orthodontic retainers: a systematic review of laboratory studies.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled 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
- What causes failure of fixed orthodontic retention? - systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.Head & face medicine · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- Failed Orthodontic PEEK Retainer: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis and a Possible Failure Mechanism in a Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Orthodontic Retention Protocols and Their Impact on Treatment Stability: Insights from a Tertiary Care Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Assessment of mechanical characteristics of polyetheretherketone as orthodontic fixed lingual retainers.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Accuracy and stability of computer-aided customized lingual fixed retainer: a pilot study.Progress in orthodontics · 2022Article
- Preparation of Nano-Apatite Grafted Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Composites for Orthodontic Application: Mechanical and In Vitro Biofilm Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Bond Strength and Deflection of Four Types of Bonded Lingual Retainers.International journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- Article
- Relapse and inadvertent tooth movement post orthodontic treatment in individuals with fixed retainers: A review.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBonded retainers are widely used as they are esthetically pleasing, easily acceptable, provide greater stability, compliance free and causes no soft tissue irritation and speech problems. Though, fracture and bond failure are their shortcomings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the number of bond failures and type of failure pattern between two types of mandibular canine-canine bonded retainers.
methodsTotal 60 subjects were recruited initially and were assessed for eligibility, out of which 6 were excluded and 2 were lost to follow up. They were randomly divided into two groups. Fiber reinforced composite (FRC) retainers were inserted in group 1 subjects while group 2 subjects received multistranded stainless steel (MSW) retainers. The subjects were recalled after every 3 months over a period of 1 year. Bond failure rate and failure pattern based on adhesive remnant index were evaluated at each visit. The bond failure rate and failure pattern were compared between the two retainers by using Chi-square test.
resultsThe bond failure rates were 42.94% for FRC retainer and 31.41% for MSW retainer. Hence, total number of bond failures in both retainers were 37.17%. The difference of bond failure between two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.012). Type "0" failure pattern was detected commonly with both types of retainers (p < 0.001).
conclusionOur findings indicate that multistranded stainless steel wire retainer is a superior option to be used for fixed lingual retention in mandibular arch as it exhibited lower bond failure as compared to fiber reinforced composite retainer. Adhesive failure is the most common type of bond failure observed with both types of fixed retainers.
trial registrationID NCT03881813 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ); March 19, 2019, retrospective registration.
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.