ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Pre-fabricated chain retainers as an alternative to traditional retainers.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Preserving the outcome of orthodontic treatment is both important and challenging. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding the best way to ensure long-term treatment outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate a pre-fabricated chain retainer (PFCR) in terms of: ability to maintain satisfactory treatment outcomes; periodontal and dental health; complications; and patient satisfaction. Materials and methods: Overall, 130 patients who had completed orthodontic treatment with a fixed appliance during the period 2016-2019 (follow-up time range, 24-55 months) at a specialist orthodontic clinic in Varberg, Sweden and who had a PFCR in the lower jaw were invited to take part in the study. Little's irregularity index (LII) was recorded on dental casts. Caries, gingivitis, calculus, probing pocket depth, and gingival retractions were registered during clinical examinations. Patient satisfaction and retainer complications were evaluated using a questionnaire. Results: In total, 76 patients (58.5%) agreed to participate. All patients, except for one, had their retainer still in place, and the complication rate was 40%. The LII scores were in the range of 0-4 mm (mean, 1.42 mm). At the retainer site, 82% had calculus, 74% had gingivitis, 1% had pocket depth >4 mm, 10.5% had gingival retractions >2 mm, and 0% had caries. All the patients expressed satisfaction with their retainer. Conclusion: PFCRs exhibit characteristics similar to those of traditional bonded retainers in terms of complications, stability, side-effects and patient experience. Therefore, they can be considered a viable alternative to traditional retainers installed in the lower anterior teeth.
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.