ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2020
Approaches of Turkish Dentists in Cases of Orthodontic Lingual Retainer Failures.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the approaches of Turkish dentists in cases of orthodontic lingual retainer failures.
methodsA self-administered questionnaire was used to quantify dentists' approaches to lingual retainer failures. The first part of the study investigated the demographic characteristics. In the second part, dentists' approaches to cases of failed retainers were assessed. The third part had questions related to the type of retainers bonded solely to the canines or to all the 6 anterior teeth. Descriptive statistics were done with Pearson's χ
resultsA total of 320 Turkish dentists participated in the survey. Experienced and public dentists preferred to advise the patients whose retainers had failed to contact their orthodontist more frequently (p<0.05). Regarding their approach to patients who requested removal of the bonded retainer, inexperienced dentists more frequently preferred to refer the patients to an orthodontist (p<0.05). With regard to factors affecting the choice to remove a bonded retainer, the most and the least importance were attributed to the orthodontist's opinion and the patient's demand, respectively.
conclusionTurkish dentists prefer referring their patients to orthodontists rather than performing procedures in cases of failure associated with bonded retainers. Different demographic characteristics seem to have an impact on these approaches.
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.