Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2022
Comparative assessment of relapse and failure between CAD/CAM stainless steel and standard stainless steel fixed retainers in orthodontic retention patients.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06837168 (Clinical Effectiveness of Cobalt Chromium CAD-CAM Designed Customized Lingual Retainer), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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.
Clinical Effectiveness of Cobalt Chromium CAD-CAM Designed Customized Lingual Retainer: a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- The prevalence of the failure of fixed orthodontic bonded retainers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2023Pooled it
- Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of CAD/CAM titanium fixed lingual retainer versus conventional stainless steel fixed retainer (randomized controlled clinical trial).Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
- Stability, survival, and patient satisfaction with CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 6-month follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled clinical trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2023Trial
- Review
- Post-treatment stability after insertion of CAD/CAM fabricated or Conventional fixed orthodontic retainers: a two-year follow-up.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- In Vitro Investigation Using a New Biomechanical Force-Torque Analysis System: Comparison of Conventional and CAD/CAM-Fixed Orthodontic Retainers.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy of lingual fixed retainers fabricated using a CAD/CAM bending machine.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- Keeping the teeth in line: Exploring the necessity of bonded retainers in orthodontics: A narrative review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2024Review
- Accuracy and stability of computer-aided customized lingual fixed retainer: a pilot study.Progress in orthodontics · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare relapse and failure rates of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and standard fixed retainers. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial included 46 patients who completed active orthodontic treatment and complied with retention visits. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 16), Lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 16), and control group with stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (traditional, n = 14). Intraoral scans were obtained at placement of fixed retainers (T1), 3-month visit (T2), and 6-month visit (T3) and measured for intercanine width and Little's Irregularity Index. Failures were recorded.
resultsThe CAD/CAM group experienced less intercanine width decrease than the traditional group at 3 months (mean difference, 0.83 ± 0.16 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.22; P < .001) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.23 ± 0.40 mm; 95% CI, 0.19-2.27; P < .05). The CAD/CAM group experienced less increase in Little's Irregularity Index compared with the lab group within 3 months (mean difference, 0.81 ± 0.27 mm; 95% CI, 0.12-1.49; P < .05). Failures from greatest to least were experienced by the lab group (43.8%), the CAD/CAM group (25%), and the traditional group (14.3%).
conclusionsWithin 6 months of bonding fixed retainers, CAD/CAM fixed retainers showed less relapse than lab-based and traditional chairside retainers and less failures than lab-based retainers.
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.