Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2021
Effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Which orthodontic retainer provides the best stabilization? : Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Pooled it
- Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Transfer accuracy of three different virtually designed CAD/CAM retainers - baseline results of a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Stability, survival, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization of CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 2-year follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2024Trial
- 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
- CAD/CAM nitinol bonded retainer versus a chairside rectangular-chain bonded retainer: A multicentre randomised controlled trial.Journal of orthodontics · 2023Trial
- Three-dimensional stability during orthodontic retention: A comparative analysis of conventional, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent fixed retainers versus removable appliances.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Adolescent and young adult periodontitis: modifiable inflammatory pathways and risk stratification.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Success Rates of a CAD/CAM Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Fixed Retainer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Effect of different fixed lingual retainers on tooth mobility: prospective clinical study.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2025Observational
- Comparing the Impact of Titanium and Stainless Steel Retainers on Lower Incisor Stability, Periodontal Health, and Retainer Survival: A Preliminary Study.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- A Novel 3-Dimensional Printed Nanoceramic Hybrid Resin Fixed Lingual Retainer: Characterization and Mechanical Tests.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Retention preferences and protocols of Brazilian orthodontists: a cross-sectional study.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- Direct 3D-Printed Orthodontic Retainers. A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Clinical Study on Efficiency of Using Traditional Direct Bonding or OrthGuide Computer-Aided Indirect Bonding in Orthodontic Patients.Disease markers · 2022Article
- Efficacy of CAD/CAM Technology in Interventions Implemented in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trials.BioMed research international · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effects of different lingual retainers on periodontal health and stability of mandibular anterior teeth at the 1-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred thirty-two patients were randomly allocated to four groups using different lingual retainers: group 1, 0.016 × 0.022-in dead-soft wire; group 2, 0.0215-in 5-strand stainless steel wire; group 3, 0.014 × 0.014-in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing nitinol retainer (Memotain); group 4, connected bonding pads. Plaque, gingival, and calculus indexes were used to evaluate periodontal health, and Little's irregularity index, intercanine width, and arch length measurements were performed to evaluate stability. All measurements were performed at each time point (debonding and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).
resultsThe mean value of the gingival index obtained in group 3 was lower than the mean value for all other groups. The mean value of the calculus index was the lowest in group 3, and there was a significant difference between group 3 and groups 1 and 2. No differences were found among the groups in terms of plaque index, intercanine width, and arch length. The least irregularity was obtained in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences between these groups and groups 1 and 4.
conclusionsGingival inflammation and calculus accumulation were the lowest in group 3 (Memotain). The irregularity for Memotain and stainless steel retainers was less than or the other groups. However, no clinically significant worsening of periodontal health or relapse were seen in any groups after 1 year.
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.