ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2022
Vacuum-Formed Retainers Versus Lingual-Bonded Retainers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stability of Treatment Outcomes in Orthodontically Treated Patients.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of quality of life and periodontal health with an eight-unit maxillary fixed retainer through a prospective clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Influence of fixed orthodontic steel retainers on gingival health and recessions of mandibular anterior teeth in an intact periodontium - a randomized, clinical controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Bracketless three-dimensional orthodontic treatment using coated nickel-titanium E-wires for mild-moderate anterior crowding: A case report with 6-month follow-up.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Comparing the Impact of Titanium and Stainless Steel Retainers on Lower Incisor Stability, Periodontal Health, and Retainer Survival: A Preliminary Study.Turkish 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review aimed at analyzing the literature comparing vacuum-formed retainers and lingual-bonded retainers for maintaining treatment stability and periodontal health and evaluating retainer failure and patient satisfaction.
methodsElectronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. Only randomized controlled trials were involved. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Meta-analysis was performed and certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
resultsFive randomized controlled trials were included for qualitative analysis and 2 studies were included for quantitative analysis. Two studies concluded that lingual-bonded retainers were more effective than vacuum-formed retainers in maintaining treatment stability. Two studies had a high risk of bias and 3 studies had some concerns. No statistically significant difference in Little's Irregularity Index (standard mean difference = -0.10; P value = .61), inter-canine width (standard mean difference = 0.66; P value = .09), inter-molar width (standard mean difference = 0.08; P value = .85), arch length (standard mean difference = -0.18; P value = .60) between the 2 retainers was noted. Periodontal status and retainer failure rate (odds ratio= 2.28; P value = .23) were similar in both retainers. Patient discomfort, soreness, and speech difficulty were more with vacuum-formed retainers and oral hygiene maintenance was easier with vacuum-formed retainers.
conclusionA very low-level certainty of evidence suggests that both vacuum-formed retainers and lingual-bonded retainers were equally effective in maintaining treatment stability. Periodontal status and retainer failures were similar in both retainers. Vacuum-formed retainers were better for oral hygiene maintenance but were associated with discomfort, soreness, and speech difficulty than lingual-bonded retainers.
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.