Trial reportEuropean journal of orthodontics2022
Cost analysis of two types of fixed maxillary retainers and a removable vacuum-formed maxillary retainer: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04616755 (Stability of Maxillary Anterior Teeth After Two Years of Retention in Adolescents - A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Bonded and a Vacuum-formed Retainer), 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.
Stability of Maxillary Anterior Teeth After Two Years of Retention in Adolescents - A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Bonded and a Vacuum-formed Retainer
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 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
- Trial
- Surgical versus non-surgical canine exposure in the management of impacted canines in Orthodontic patients: retrospective analysis in Southern region of Najran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Costs in dental care: a scoping review of methodologies and trends.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Low translational and rotational movements with 2-point stainless-steel retainers over a period of 1 and 3 years.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Keeping the teeth in line: Exploring the necessity of bonded retainers in orthodontics: A narrative review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2024Review
- Assessment of the Bacterial Loads of Vacuum-Thermoformed Removable Retainers (VTRR) in Patients under Retention Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been an increased interest in conducting healthcare economic evaluations. Also, orthodontic treatments have gathered focus from an economic point of view, however orthodontic research seldom examines both clinical and economic outcomes.
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the costs of three retention methods: a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors, a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors and canines, and a removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in costs for the three types of retention methods. TRIAL
designThree-arm, parallel group, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety adolescent patients, 54 girls and 36 boys, treated with fixed or removable retainers in the maxilla, were recruited to the study. The patients were randomized in blocks of 30, by an independent person, to one of three groups: bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 13-23, bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 12-22, and removable VFR. A cost analysis was made regarding chair time costs based on the costs per hour for the specialist in orthodontics, and material costs plus any eventual costs for repairs of the appliance. Changes in Little's irregularity index and in single contact point discrepancies (CPDs) were measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. The analysis was performed at 2 years of retention.
resultsNo statistically significant difference in costs between the maxillary fixed retainers and the VFRs was found, however, the material and emergency costs were significantly higher for the VFR compared with the bonded retainers. All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity, and no statistically significant differences in irregularity or CPDs of the maxillary anterior teeth in the three groups was detected. LIMITATIONS: It was a single-centre trial, and hence less generalizable. Costs depended on local factors, and consequently, cannot be directly transferred to other settings.
conclusionsAll three retention methods can be recommended when considering costs and retention capacity.
trial registrationNCT04616755.
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.