ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2022
A Comparative Assessment of Three Mandibular Retention Protocols: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of bonding protocols and physical-mechanical properties of composite on durability and failure rate of fixed orthodontic retainers: a systematic review of laboratory studies.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- The prevalence of the failure of fixed orthodontic bonded retainers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2023Pooled it
- The Micromechanical Properties and Surface Roughness of Orthodontic Retainer Wires-An In Vitro Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
purposeFixed retainers have been advocated for the prevention of anterior mandibular crowding after orthodontic treatment. However, limited data is available to help clinicians choose a retention protocol that is acceptable in terms of stability, emergencies, and side effects in the long term. It was the aim of this study to assess survival and alignment stability of the 0.016" x 0.022" stainless steel wire compared to more common protocols. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree different mandibular fixed retention protocols were compared in 600 consecutive patients: 1. 0.0215" multistrand wire (MW) with separate curing of resin and composite; 2. 0.016" x 0.022" stainless-steel wire with simultaneous curing of resin and composite (SS1C); and 3. 0.016" x 0.022" stainless-steel wire with separate curing of resin and composite (SS2C). The hazard rate for detachment across wire groups was assessed with a Cox frailty model.
resultsIncisor alignment was maintained with all retention wires. One incisor with unexpected torque change was observed in group MW. The average annual emergency rate was below 2% for all three protocols. Fewer emergency visits were found in patients with solid steel wires than with multistrand wires. Detachment of the wire is the most common cause of emergency visits with no difference between wire types. Multistrand wires were more often damaged than were solid steel wires. There was no evidence that direct application of the composite on the uncured primer influenced retainer adhesion to the enamel.
conclusionsThe mandibular anterior teeth can be predictably stabilised with a 0.016" x 0.022" stainless steel wire..
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.