ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2020
The Behavior of Two Types of Upper Removable Retainers-Our Clinical Experience.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Marital Status, Education, and Family Size on Parental Behaviors Toward Early Childhood Caries in Romania.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Parental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Early Childhood Caries in Bihor, Romania: A Cross-Sectional Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Substantial Improvements in Facial Morphology through Surgical-Orthodontic Treatment: A Case Report and Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Post-treatment Stability in Orthodontic Retention with Twistflex Retainers-Do Patients Benefit from Additional Removable Retainers?Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Chronological Age in Different Bone Development Stages: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Hawley retainer (HR) and the vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) are the most common removable retainers in orthodontic treatments. The aim of this retrospective study was to comparatively analyze the behavior of two types of removable retainers-HRs and VFRs-in terms of retainer damage, loss, and the rate of installation of mild or severe relapse that required recourse to certain therapeutic interventions. The study was performed on 618 orthodontic patients aged 11-17 years, average age 13.98 ± 1.51, out of which 57% were patients having VFRs and the remaining 43% having HRs in the upper arch. We performed an analysis of the two groups of patients-HRs group and VFRs group-at 6 months (T1) and at 12 months (T2) after the application of the retainer. The results showed that 6% of all the retainers were damaged, mostly at T2 (54.1%). Seven percent of all the retainers were lost, mostly at T1 (58.1%). Of all the patients, 9.1% presented mild relapse, mostly at T1 (58.9%), while 2.6% presented severe relapse. The VFRs were significantly more frequently associated with the occurrence of damage than the HRs (
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.