ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2022
Is there a difference among different bonded retainers in regard to survival rate?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Design A retrospective study.Cohort selection Inclusion criteria included: participants of any age who had completed their fixed orthodontic treatment on both arches and were treated by the same orthodontist in their private practice; had bonded retainers for five years, which were placed immediately after the orthodontic treatment in both arches; had one of three types of bonded retainers (0.026 × 0.010 inch Bond-A-Braid, 0.038 × 0.016 inch Ortho-FlexTech and Reliance Retainium Superior Brand Lingual Retainer Wire); had a final overbite of 2-4 mm after the completion of orthodontic treatment. Subjects who got their retainers changed, repaired or removed before five years, and syndromic patients, were excluded from the study.Data analysis The participants who agreed to contribute to the study and came for the final clinical examination were assessed for the retention status and the periodontal/gingival indies. Retention and retainer status: unwanted tooth movements and time and type of retainer failure. Periodontal/gingival indies: maximum pocket depth (PD) from the lingual side for the retained teeth and bleeding on probing (BOP). The authors performed a series of analyses to compare the orthodontic retainers regarding several outcomes and demographic variables. Briefly, the authors compared the orthodontic retainers concerning: i) age and treatment duration using analysis of variance (since the data were found to be normally distributed based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test); ii) demographic variables and BOP using several Chi-square tests; iii) PD via the Kruskal-Wallis test; and iv) survival rate through a Cox regression model alongside log-rank test.Results In total, 118 patients were included in this study, of which, 90 were women and 28 were men, with an average age of 22.34 ± 6.44 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the survival rate between the three types of retainers or between men and women. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in survival rate between the different age groups for the maxilla and mandible. Different maximum and minimum failure rates were observed between teeth in the maxilla and the mandible in the three retainers' group.Conclusions No difference was found between the three types of bonded retainers in regard to the survival rate and periodontal indices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36526843What 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.