ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2020
Long-term Effectiveness of Maxillary and Mandibular Bonded Orthodontic Retainers.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Periodontal indexes of two types of 3 x 3 retainers: 0.032-in SS V-loop versus 0.0215-in SS coaxial - a randomized crossover trial.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2024Trial
- 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
- Low translational and rotational movements with 2-point stainless-steel retainers over a period of 1 and 3 years.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Impact of fixed orthodontic retainers on oral health-related quality of life: a longitudinal prospective study.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- A Comparative Assessment of Three Mandibular Retention Protocols: A Prospective Cohort Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2022Article
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
purposeThis retrospective cohort study investigated the long-term effectiveness of one type of maxillary and 2 types of mandibular fixed lingual retainers. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty orthodontic patients in retention for 10-15 years were included. Irregularity index, intercanine width, overjet (OJ) and overbite (OB) were measured on plaster models at 3 occasions: (T1) pre-treatment, (T2) post-treatment and (T3) 10-15 years post-treatment. Analyses assessed the effect of the retainer type and time on mandibular irregularity, intercanine width and retainer failure.
resultsIn the mandible, the irregularity index increased (0.43 mm) between T2 and T3 for the 0.027" β-titanium (TMA) retainers bonded to canines only while it was stable (-0.02 mm) for the 0.016" x 0.022" braided stainless steel retainers (SS6) bonded to all six anterior teeth. The intercanine width was relatively stable in both groups during the entire observation period. In the maxilla, the irregularity index was stable between T2 and T3 (+0.07 mm). The intercanine width increased (+2.02 mm) during treatment T1-T2 and was stable (-0.02 mm) in the retention phase T2 to T3.
conclusionsIn the mandible, SS6 retainers were slightly more effective in maintaining alignment compared to the TMA retainers. In the maxilla, the SS4 retainers without canine extensions were effective in maintaining alignment. All retainers were effective in maintaining the intercanine width.
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.