Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2023
Comparison of periodontal status and failure rates with different retainer bonding methods and adhesives: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Gingival health and relapse tendency: a split mouth randomized controlled trial of two positions of lower fixed retainers.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis single-center, randomized clinical trial evaluated and compared retainer bonding among different methods and adhesives in terms of periodontal status and failure rates. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 100 patients from the orthodontic department of Pamukkale University were randomly assigned to the following 4 groups: group 1, direct bonding (DB) with two-step adhesive; group 2, DB with one-step adhesive; group 3, indirect bonding (IDB) with two-step adhesive; and group 4, IDB with one-step adhesive. Eligibility criteria included good finishing results and oral hygiene, no periodontal or systemic problems, and no missing anterior teeth or restorations. Randomization was carried out using computer-generated random numbers with allocation concealment by opaque, sealed envelopes. The main outcomes were plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and calculus index (CI) recorded at bonding, 6 months (T1), and 12 months (T2) after bonding. A secondary outcome was failure rate. The periodontal outcome assessor was blinded. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and chi-square test.
resultsPI and GI increased with time in all study groups, but there were no significant differences among groups at any time point. A small amount of calculus was observed in all study groups, with the increase in CI for group 3 significantly greater at the T2-T1 time interval (P < .05). There were no significant differences between groups for 12-month failure rates.
conclusionsThe one-step retainer adhesive was similar in terms of periodontal status and failure rate. Therefore, a one-step adhesive can be used during bonding, regardless of technique.
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.