Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2022
One-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers.
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 NCT07659041 (Effectiveness, Patient Acceptance, and Cost Estimation of 3D-printed Retainer Compared to Hawley Retainer in Expansion Case), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Effectiveness, Patient Acceptance, and Cost Estimation of 3D-printed Retainer Compared to Hawley Retainer in Expansion Case: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 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
- Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.Progress in orthodontics · 2022Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Modified Vacuum-Formed Aligners Versus Conventional Micro-Implant Anchorage in Molar Intrusion for Pre-Restorative Orthodontics.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Assessment of wear characteristics, longevity and stiffness of Essix-type retainers.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Retention Force Comparison between Hawley and Vacuum-Formed Retainers in Orthodontic Treatment of Maxillary Arch: A Prospective, Non-randomized, Cohort Study over 6 Months : Comparing Retention Force of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers.Galen medical journal · 2024Article
- Direct 3D-Printed Orthodontic Retainers. A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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
objectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness of Hawley retainers (HRs) and modified vacuum-formed retainers (mVFRs) with palatal coverage in maintaining transverse expansion during a 12-month retention period. MATERIALS AND
methodsData were collected from postorthodontic treatment patients who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 35 patients were randomly allocated using a centralized randomization technique into either mVFR (n = 18) or HR group (n = 17). The outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded to the retention method. Dental casts of patients were evaluated at debond, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months of retention. Intercanine width (ICW), interpremolar width (IPMW), interfirst molar mesiobuccal cusp width 1 (IFMW1), and interfirst molar distobuccal cusp width 2 (IFMW2) were compared between groups over time using mixed analysis of variance.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for ICW (P = .76), IPMW (P = .63), IFMW1 (P = .16), and IFMW2 (P = .40) during the 12-month retention period.
conclusionsThe null hypothesis could not be rejected. HR and mVFR had similar clinical effectiveness in the retention of transverse expansion cases during a 12-month retention period.
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.