ArticleProgress in orthodontics2022
Accuracy and stability of computer-aided customized lingual fixed retainer: a pilot study.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transfer accuracy of three different virtually designed CAD/CAM retainers - baseline results of a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Fabrication of lingual fixed retainers on 2D prints: testing A novel workflow.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Accuracy of lingual fixed retainers fabricated using a CAD/CAM bending machine.Korean journal of orthodontics · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith advances in digital technology, new types of lingual fixed retainers are being developed. However, there are few studies that quantitatively evaluate the accuracy and stability of lingual fixed retainers. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and stability of two types of computer-aided customized lingual fixed retainers and a conventional lingual fixed retainer.
methodsA total of 10 maxillary and 10 mandibular duplicated dental models were selected, and then, three types of retainers were fabricated on the canine-to-canine area for each model. To evaluate accuracy, wire clearance at interproximal area (WCI) was measured using superimposition analysis. Initial flatness deformation was also measured for vertical distortion of retainers. Lateral width, anteroposterior length, and flatness deformation were measured at three-time points for stability assessment. Thermocycling was used to induce 6 months of time flow.
resultsThe custom-bent group showed significantly higher WCI than the custom-cut and manual groups in the maxillary arch (P = 0.002). The custom-cut group showed significantly less flatness deformation, which was followed by the custom-bent and manual groups in both the maxillary and mandibular arch (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in stability between the three retainer groups during 5100 cycles of thermocycling (corresponding to 6-month period).
conclusionsSince there was no difference in stability between the three groups, it is recommended to use custom-cut type retainers in light of accuracy. However, accuracy and stability are not the only factors to consider when selecting type of retainers. Because each retainer has advantages and disadvantages, the type of retainers should be decided in consideration of the clinical environment.
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.