Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32780168›Full record

ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2021

Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers : A prospective short-term study.

Yasemin Kartal, Burçak Kaya, Ömür Polat-Özsoy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Comparison of six different CAD/CAM retainers vs. the stainless steel twistflex retainer: an in vitro investigation of survival rate and stability.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yasemin KartalPrivate Practice, Antalya, Turkey.
Burçak KayaDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey. burcak_kaya@hotmail.com.
Ömür Polat-ÖzsoyPrivate Practice, Ankara, Turkey.
Antalya IVF · TRBaşkent University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo prospectively compare the short-term periodontal effects and survival rates of mandibular lingual canine-to-canine Memotain (CA-Digital, Mettmann, Germany) and five-stranded bonded retainers.

methodsIn all, 52 patients requiring retention after orthodontic treatment were assigned to 2 study groups (n = 26 in each group). Retention was provided by Memotain retainers which were fabricated digitally using CAD-CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) technology in the first group and by five-stranded retainers which were fabricated manually using a conventional bending method in the second group. The patients were examined at the following time points: 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months. Plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per tooth, and survival rate of retainer wires were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U, Friedman, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and χ

resultsThe differences between the groups were nonsignificant for plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, marginal recession, bleeding on probing, failure rate per tooth and survival rate of retainer wires. Significant differences were observed within the groups throughout the follow-up period for plaque index and probing depth. The survival rates of retainer wires were 77% for the Memotain retainers and 73% for the five-stranded retainers for the 6‑month follow-up period.

conclusionsPeriodontal outcomes and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded mandibular lingual bonded retainers were similar. Furthermore, periodontal health was maintained and considerably high survival rates were achieved with both retainer types.

Indexed as

Orthodontic Appliances, FixedOrthodontic RetainersGermanyHumansOrthodontic Appliance DesignProspective StudiesSurvival RateCAD-CAMMultistranded retainerOrthodontic retainersOrthodontic treatmentPeriodontal health

Identifiers

PMID32780168
OpenAlexW3048574972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.