Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37189925›Full record

ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Direct 3D-Printed Orthodontic Retainers. A Systematic Review.

Efthimia Tsoukala, Ioannis Lyros, Apostolos I Tsolakis, Michael P Maroulakos, Ioannis A Tsolakis

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07659041 (Effectiveness, Patient Acceptance, and Cost Estimation of 3D-printed Retainer Compared to Hawley Retainer in Expansion Case), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07659041 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness, Patient Acceptance, and Cost Estimation of 3D-printed Retainer Compared to Hawley Retainer in Expansion Case: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational University of MalaysiaRan2026 to 2027Enrolled28ConditionsOrthodontic Relapse, Retention in OrthodonticArms3D printed retainer, Hawley retainer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Which orthodontic retainer provides the best stabilization? : Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Efthimia TsoukalaDepartment of Orthodontics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Dentistry, 11527 Athens, Greece.
Ioannis LyrosDepartment of Orthodontics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Dentistry, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-5897-6116
Apostolos I TsolakisDepartment of Orthodontics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Dentistry, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-3019-5438
Michael P MaroulakosDepartment of Orthodontics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Dentistry, 11527 Athens, Greece.
Ioannis A TsolakisDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5435-4889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has shed light on many fields in medicine and dentistry, including orthodontics. Direct 3D-printed prosthetics, implants or surgical devices are well-documented. The fabrication of orthodontic retainers using CAD technology and additive manufacturing is an emerging trend but the available data are scarce. The research approach of the present review included keywords in Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar up to December 2022. The searching process concluded with five studies eligible for our project. Three of them investigated directly 3D-printed clear retainers in vitro. The other two studies investigated directly 3D-printed fixed retainers. Among them, one study was in vitro and the second was a prospective clinical trial. Directly 3D-printed retainers can be evolved over time as a good alternative to all the conventional materials for retention. Devices that are 3D-printed are more time and cost efficient, offer more comfortable procedures for both practitioners and patients and the materials used in additive manufacturing can solve aesthetic problems, periodontal issues or problems with the interference of these materials with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). More well-designed prospective clinical trials are necessary for more evaluable results.

Indexed as

3D direct-printed retainers3D orthodontic retainers3D-printed retainersadditive manufacturing

Identifiers

PMID37189925
PMCPMC10136491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.